Allowed

Ranjeet Singh Mehta v. Joginder Singh

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Aug 2024CR.R/13/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Himachal Pradesh allowed the Criminal Revision Petition. On full payment of compensation and the respondent's consent, the court compounded the offence under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, quashed the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Offence compounded under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act; impugned judgments of conviction and sentence quashed; petitioner acquitted; bail bonds discharged; 5% compounding fee directed

Ranjeet Singh Mehta Vs Joginder Singh — Cheque Dishonour | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

2024:HHC:6187

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr.R. No. 13 of 2023 Date of Decision: 1.8.2024

¶4

________________________________________________________ Ranjeet Singh Mehta Versus Joginder Singh	____________ ……...Peti …....Respo	_ tioner ndent
Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Prashant Chauhan, Adv Sarthak Mehta, Advocate.	ocate vice	Mr.
For the Respondent:Mr. Dibender Ghosh, Advocate.
_____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J .(Oral)	______________

¶5

Instant criminal revision petition, lays challenge to judgment dated 1.10.2022, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P., in Criminal Appeal CIS No.10 of 2022, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.3.2022, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P., in criminal case No. 136-3 of 2014 CIS No. 148/2014, whereby the learned trial Court while holding the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short the “Act"), convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one

¶6

2024:HHC:6187

¶7

¶8

year and pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,06,000/- to the complainant.

¶9

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that respondent-complainant instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act, in the competent court of law., alleging therein that accused with a view to discharge his liability issued cheque No. 000033, dated 31.12.2013 amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/- in favour of the complainant, but fact remains that aforesaid cheque on its presentation, was dishonoured. Since petitioner-accused failed to make the payment good within the time stipulated in the legal notice, respondent/complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings before the competent Court of law under Section 138 of the Act.

¶10

3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 15.3.2022, held the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as per the description given herein above.

¶11

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by the court below, accused preferred an appeal in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur Bushahr, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 1.10.2022,

¶12

2024:HHC:6187

¶13

¶14

as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, present petitioner-accused has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, seeking therein his acquittal after setting aside the judgments of conviction recorded by the courts below.

¶15

5. Vide order dated 12.1.2023, this Court suspended the sentence imposed by the court below subject to the petitioner’s depositing 50% of the compensation amount and furnishing personal bonds within six weeks.

¶16

6. Before case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merits, parties have entered into compromise, whereby petitioner has agreed to pay entire the amount of compensation awarded by the court below.

¶17

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, states that sum of Rs.1,00,000/- stands deposited with the Registry of this Court and sum of Rs. 61,200/- is lying deposited with the learned trial court, whereas sum of Rs. 1,44,800/- already stands deposited in the saving bank account of the complainant and as such, this Court while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, may compound the offence and acquit the accused.

¶18

8. While fairly acknowledging factum with regard to receipt of Rs. 1,44,800/- by the complainant, Mr. Dibender Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-complainant states that his client shall have

¶19

2024:HHC:6187

¶20

¶21

no objection in compounding the offence in case the amount lying deposited in the Registry of this court as well as learned trial court is ordered to be released in favour of the complainant.

¶22

9. Having taken note of the fact that entire amount of compensation stands paid or agreed to be paid to the respondentcomplainant and respondent has no objection in compounding the offence, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for compounding of offence while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act as well as in terms of guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Cour t in Damodar S. Prabhu V. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663 , wherein it has been categorically held that court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, can proceed to compound the offence even after recording of conviction.

¶23

10. Consequently, in view of the above, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and sentence dated 1.10.2022 and 15.3.2022, passed by the courts below are quashed and setaside and the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 138 of the Act. Interim order, if any, is vacated. Bail bonds, if any, are discharged. Petitioner is also liable to pay 5% of the cheque amount as compounding fee with the Himachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, within four weeks. It is made clear that in case, needful

¶24

2024:HHC:6187

¶25

¶26

is not done within the time stipulated by this court, accused besides rendering himself liable for penal consequences would also invite contempt proceedings. Registry of this Court as well as learned trial court below are also directed to release the amount, if any deposited by the accused with up-to-date interest, on filing appropriate application, detailing therein saving bank account details of respondent-complainant. The petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any.

¶27

August 1, 2024 (manjit)

Ranjeet Singh Mehta v. Joginder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjeet Singh Mehta v. Joginder Singh

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

Atul Vs State of Hp

Murari Lal Vs State of Hp and Another

Gulab Chauhan Vs Satish Mehta

Prem Gaurav Vs Sarita Rana

Shisham Kumar Vs Bisheshar Lal

Manmohan Singh and Ors. Vs Kamla Devi and Ors.