The High Court allowed the compounding of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act following a settlement between the petitioner and respondent. The conviction was quashed, and costs were directed to be deposited within three weeks.
The compounding of the offence by the respondent-complainant was allowed and the conviction was quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Cr. Revision No. 232 of 2015
Date of decision: June 02, 2017.
Leela Dhar …...Petitioner.
Versus
Labh Singh. …..Respondent.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
| For the petitioner | : | Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate with Ms. |
|---|---|---|
| Leena Guleria, Advocate. | ||
| For the respondent | : | Mr. S.C. Sharma, Advocate. |
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (Oral)
The petitioner-convict herein was tried by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist class, Chachiot at Gohar, District Mandi for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ in short). After holding the trial he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay `5000/- as compensation. In appeal learned Sessions Judge, Mandi has affirmed the findings of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court against the petitioner-
1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes.
2
convict and dismissed the appeal vide judgment under challenge in this petition. He has now invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court on the grounds, inter-alia, that the findings of his conviction recorded in contravention of the evidence available on record are perverse, hence not legally sustainable. Anyhow, this Court need not to go into all factual details nor ponder upon the admissibility of the evidence available on record because during the pendency of the appeal the petitioner-convict has settled the matter with the respondent-complainant consequent upon the settlement so arrived at the payment of `10,000/- to the latter. 2. A joint application under Section 142 of the Act has been filed with a prayer to record the compromise and the judgment of conviction passed against the petitioner-convict by both Courts below be quashed and set aside. 3. As a matter of fact consequent upon the compromise having been arrived at between the parties an application under Section 147 of the Act with a prayer to allow the respondent-complainant to compound the offence should have been filed. Anyhow, treating the present application to be the one under Section 147 of the Act, I allow the compounding of the offence by the respondent-complainant, of course, subject to payment of the costs in the light of the judgment of this Court in Dhiraj Singh and others Vs. M/S Suriti Enterprises, Latest HLJ2013(HP) 1120 in which while placing reliance on the
3
judgment of the Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babal, (2010) 5 SCC 663 , it has been held that the compounding of the offence though is permissible even in the Appellate Court also, however, subject to payment of costs.
60,000/-, however, as per the findings recorded by learned trial Court and affirmed by learned lower Appellate Court, out of it a sum of 50,000/- was already paid by the petitioner-convict to the respondent-complainant well before institution of the suit. Therefore, the complaint was filed only with regard to the remaining amount i.e. 10,000/-. In the given facts and circumstances, the levy of costs @5% of 10,000/- would serve the ends of justice.4
Court on 13.7.2017 and for that, the matter be listed in the Chambers at 4:15 P.M. In the event of the convict-petitioner failed to deposit the amount within the stipulated period, he shall surrender in the trial Court to serve out the sentence.
if any.
(Dharam Chand Chaudhary), Judge.
June 02, 2017, (vs)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction and sentence can be quashed in view of the settlement between parties under Section 138 of the Act.
Whether the application under Section 147 of the Act filed in the revision petition can be accepted to compound the offence.
Whether costs should be levied in lieu of the settlement amount under the Scheme by the Apex Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dhiraj Singh and others Vs. M/S Suriti Enterprises, Latest HLJ2013(HP) 1120Relied on¶14
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Leela Dhar
Labh Singh
Dharam Chand Chaudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court