Allowed

Manjeet Kumar v. Jakir Hussain

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Jun 2022CR.R/212/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh allowed a criminal revision petition under Section 397 CrPC. The court relied on the settlement between parties and Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to compound the offence of cheque dishonour, quashing the conviction and sentence imposed by lower courts.

What did the court decide?

The judgment dated 21.03.2022 and sentence dated 29.11.2021 were quashed; the petitioner was acquitted of the charge; bail bonds were discharged; the dispute was compounded.

Manjeet Kumar Vs Jakir Hussain — Cheque Dishonour | Himachal Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

ON THE 1^st DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION NO.212 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

MANJEET KUMAR S/O SH. SHYAM, R/O BANGALA COLONY AJIWALA, P.O. JAMINIWALA, TEHSIL PAONTA SAHIB, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, H.P. AGED ABOUT 30.

¶9

….PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SH. VINOD CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND

¶12

JAKIR HUSSAIN S/O SH. SAGIR MOHD. R/O VILLAGE KUNSDION, TEHSIL PAONTA SAHIB, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, H.P. AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.

¶13

….RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SH. VARUN CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶15

Whether approved for reporting?

¶16

This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the following:

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

By way of instant Criminal Revision Petition filed under

¶19

Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenge has been laid to judgment/order dated 21.03.2022, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur, District at Nahan, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No.10-N/10 of 2022, affirming the judgment of

¶20

¶21

conviction and order of sentence dated 29.11.2021, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., in Criminal case No.68/3 of 2017, whereby learned court below while holding petitioner-accused guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and pay compensation to the tune of `5,00,000/- to the complainant.

¶22

Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that respondent (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short Act) before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur H.P., alleging therein that in the month of August 2016, accused approached him to advance friendly loan of 3,50,000/-,which was provided to him on 24.8.2016. With a view to discharge his liability, accused issued cheque No.324641, amounting to 3, 50,000/- in favour of the complainant. However, fact remains that on presentation aforesaid cheque was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the account of the accused and as such, complainant was compelled to issue statutory notice to the accused calling upon him to make the payment good within the time stipulated in the notice. Since, the accused despite having received notice failed to make the payment good, complainant was compelled

¶23

¶24

to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act, in the competent court of law.

¶25

Learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced on record by the respective parties held accused guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as per the description given hereinabove.

¶26

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by learned trial Court, petitioner- accused preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur, District at Nahan, H.P., but same was also dismissed vide judgment dated 21.03.2022. In the aforesaid backdrop, petitioner-accused approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for his acquittal after setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by Court below.

¶27

Vide order dated 29.4.2022, this Court while suspending the substantive sentence imposed by learned court below, directed the petitioner-accused to deposit 50% of the compensation amount and furnish bail bonds within a period of four weeks. Though, aforesaid order never came to be complied with but on 27.05.2022 learned counsel representing the petitioner apprised this Court that the parties are in process of settling the dispute amicably interse

¶28

¶29

them and as such, case at hand came to be adjourned for today’s date with the direction to the parties to come present. Pursuant to aforesaid direction parties have come present.

¶30

Sh. Vinod Chauhan, learned counsel representing the petitioner states that both the parties have agreed to settle their dispute amicably interse them for total sum of 3,50,000/- and sum of 2,50,000/- has been paid to the respondent-complainant, whereas remaining amount of `1,00,000/- shall be paid within one year in installments. He further states since parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them, this Court while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, may proceed to compound the offence and thereafter acquit the petitioner-accused of the charge framed against him under Section 138 of the Act.

¶31

Respondent-Complainant Jakir Hussain, who is present in Court and is being represented by Mr. Varun Chauhan, Advocate, states on oath before this Court that he of his own volition and without there being any external pressure has entered into compromise with the petitioner-accused, whereby petitioner-accused has agreed to pay cheque amount of 3,50,000/-. He states that sum of 2, 50,000/- has been received by him, whereas remaining amount of `1,00,000/- shall be paid by the petitioner-accused within a period of one year. He states that since he has compromised the matter with the petitioner, he shall have no objection in case prayer made

¶32

¶33

on behalf of the petitioner-accused for compounding the offence while exercising power under section 147 of the Act, is accepted. While admitting the contents of the compromise placed on record to be correct, he also admits his signature. His statement is taken on record.

¶34

Petitioner-accused, Manjeet Kumar on oath states before this Court that as per the compromise arrived interse parties, he has paid sum of 2,50,000/- to the complainant and remaining sum of 1,00,000/- shall positively be paid by him to the complainant within a period of one year, failing which, he would render himself liable for penal consequences as well as contempt of the Court. His statement is taken on record.

¶35

Having taken note of the fact that both the parties have compromised the matter and in terms of the compromise substantial amount of 2,50,000/- , out of 3,50,000/- has been paid to the complainant/respondent and petitioner-accused has given undertaking to make the remaining payment within a period of one week, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner-accused for compounding the offence while exercising power under section 147 of the Act as well as in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court i n Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H.(2015)5 SCC 663, whereby it has been categorically held that Court exercising power under Section 147 of

¶36

¶37

the Act can proceed to compound the offences even in those cases where accused stands convicted.

¶38

Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid discussion made hereinabove, instant matter is ordered to be compounded and judgment dated 21.03.2022, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur, District at Nahan, Himachal Pradesh and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.11.2021 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., in Criminal case No.68/3 of2017, are quashed and set-aside. The petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 138 of the Act. The bail bonds of the accused are ordered to be discharged.

¶39

The petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated.

¶40

1^st June, 2022 (shankar)

¶41

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

Manjeet Kumar v. Jakir Hussain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjeet Kumar v. Jakir Hussain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deep Raj Vs Goverdhan Chauhan

Mast Ram Vs the Principal Secretary (Power)

Oriental Insurance Company Vs Pushpa Rana

Jasbir Singh Alias Bhau Vs State of Hp

Pooja and Another Vs State of Hp and Others

General Manager Northern Railways Vs Balbir Singh and Others