Himachali Parmar Vs M/s Puri Ornaments and Anr.

Criminal Revision No. 151 of 2023 Decided on: 05.07.2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

__________________ Himachali Parmar	____________________ Versus	______________ ……...Petitioner
M/s Puri Ornaments &	Anr.	…Respondents
__________________ Coram	____________________	______________
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S Whether approved fo	andeep Sharma, Judge. r reporting¹?
__________________ For the petitioner:	____________________ Mr. Kulwant Singh Gill,	______________ Advocate.
For the respondents:	Mr. Sandeep K. Pande respondent No.1.	y, Advocate, for
	Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr.	Vishal Panwar
	and Mr. B.C.Ver	ma, Additional
	Advocate Generals, Chauhan, Deputy Ad for respondent No.2/St	with Mr. Ravi vocate General, ate.
__________________ Sandeep Sharma, J.	____________________	______________

¶4

Instant Criminal Revision Petition filed under section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C, lays challenge to judgment dated 30.12.2022 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.41 of 2022, affirming the judgment of conviction dated 29.06.2022 and order of sentence dated 13.07.2022 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., in Complaint No.342 of 2016, tilted M/s Puri Ornaments versus Himachali

¶5

Parmar, whereby learned trial Court, while holding petitioner-

¶6

Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? .

¶7

2 -

¶8

accused (hereinafter, ‘accused’) guilty of having committed offence punishable under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter, ‘Act’), convicted and sentenced her to pay fine of Rs. 2, 10,000/- to the respondent-complainant and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

¶9

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short Act) in the competent Court of law, alleging therein that accused with a view to discharge her legal liability, issued a post dated cheque bearing No.029156 dated 24.03.2016, amounting to Rs. 2,05,000/-, drawn at ICICI Bank, Branch Mandi, District Mandi, H.P, in favour of the respondent-complainant. However, fact remains that aforesaid cheque on its presentation was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the account of the accused. Since despite having received legal notice, accused failed to make good the payment within the stipulated time, complainant was compelled to institute proceedings under S. 138 of the Act in the competent Court of law.

¶10

3. Learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced on record by the respective parties held accused guilty

¶11

3 -

¶12

of having committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced her as per the description given hereinabove

¶13

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court, respondent-complainant preferred an appeal before learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, which was allowed vide judgment dated 30.12.2022, whereby learned Sessions Judge, Mandi enhanced the compensation amount from Rs. 2, 10,000/- to Rs. 3, 00,005/. In the aforesaid background, the petitioner-accused has approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for her acquittal after setting aside the judgments of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Courts below.

¶14

5. Today, during the proceedings of the case, learned counsel representing the petitioner states that entire amount of compensation awarded by learned court below stands deposited in the Registry of this Court as well as trial Court and petitioneraccused shall have no objection in case same is ordered to be released in favour of the respondent-complainant.

¶15

6. Learned counsel representing the petitioner-accused states that since petitioner-accused is ready and willing to make

¶16

4 -

¶17

the entire payment of compensation, 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.

¶18

7. Learned counsel representing the respondentcomplainant states that in case entire amount of compensation lying deposited in the Registry of this Court as well as trial Court is ordered to be released in favour of the respondentcomplainant, respondent-complainant shall have no objection in compounding of the offence.

¶19

8. Since petitioner-accused has already deposited the entire amount of compensation in the Registry of this Court as well as trial Court and he has no objection in releasing the same in favour of the respondent/complainant, coupled with the fact that in the event of amount being released in favour of respondent-complainant, respondent-complainant has no objection in compounding the offence, 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

¶20

5 -

¶21

categorically held that Court exercising power under Section 147 of the Act can proceed to compound the offences even in those cases where accused stands convicted.

¶22

9. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid discussion made hereinabove, instant matter is ordered to be compounded and judgments passed by learned Courts below are quashed and set-aside. The petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charge framed against her under Section 138 of the Act. The bail bonds of the accused are ordered to be discharged.

¶23

10. Registry of this Court as well as trial Court are directed to release the entire amount of compensation alongwith upto date interest deposited by the petitioner-accused in favour of the respondent-complainant, by remitting the same in his saving bank account, details whereof shall be furnished by learned counsel for the respondent-complainant within a period of two weeks.

¶24

The petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any.

¶25

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge

¶26

June, 05 of 2024 (shankar)

Himachali Parmar v. M/s Puri Ornaments and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Himachali Parmar v. M/s Puri Ornaments and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Valister Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Jagbir Vs Sandeep Mehta

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Vs Kubja Devi

Ajay Verma Vs State of Hp and Another

Nitish Kumar Vs Neha Kumari