Allowed

Atul Shukla v. Som Kumar

Himachal Pradesh HC2 Aug 2024CR.R/160/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh quashed conviction and sentence orders under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act after parties compromised for a sum of Rs. 70,000. The court exercised its power to compound the offence despite prior conviction, ordered release of court-deposited funds, and directed payment of a compounding fee.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgments quashed; petitioner acquitted; deposited amounts released to respondent; petitioner directed to pay 5% cheque value as compounding fee.

Atul Shukla Vs Som Kumar — Cheque Dishonour | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

2024:HHC:6291

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr. Revision No.160 of 2024 Date of Decision: 02.08.2024

¶4

_______________________ Atul Shukla Som Kumar	________________________ Versus	______	_____________________ ……...Petitioner …....Respondent
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S Whether approved for	andeep Sharma, Judge. reporting?
For the Petitioner:	Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Se Bhairav Gupta and Advocates.	nior Mr.	Advocate, with Mr. Anubhav Chopra,
For the Respondent: _________________________	Mr. Malay Kaushal, Adv ___________________________	ocate ______	. _______________________

¶5

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶6

Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C., lays challenge to judgment dated 18.01.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.46-10 of 2022, titled Atul Shukla Vs. Som Kumar , affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.08.2022/15.09.2022, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, whereby the learned trial Court while holding the petitioner-accused (hereinafter, ‘ 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 three

¶7

2024:HHC:6291

¶8

¶9

months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.77,000/- to the complainant.

¶10

Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that respondent-complainant (hereinafter, ‘ complainant ’) instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act, in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, alleging therein that accused with a view to discharge his liability issued Cheque for a sum of Rs.50,000/-, 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.

¶11

Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record

¶12

by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 04.08.2022/15.09.2022, 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 hereinabove.

¶13

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by the Court below, accused preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated

¶14

2024:HHC:6291

¶15

¶16

18.01.2024, 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.

¶17

Before case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merits, parties have entered into compromise, whereby respondent/complainant has agreed to settle the dispute for a sum of Rs.70,000/-. Counsel representing the petitioner, on instruction from the petitioner, who is present in Court, states that sum of Rs.41,000/- lying deposited with the trial Court and sum of Rs.15,600/- lying deposited with the Registry of this Court, have been agreed to be released in favour of respondent/complainant and besides above, he shall be paying sum of Rs.13,400/- in cash to the respondent/complainant today. He states that since petitioner/complainant has agreed to pay sum of Rs.70,000/-, as per compromise, as detailed hereinabove, this Court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act may proceed to compound the offence.

¶18

Mr. Malay Kaushal, learned counsel representing the respondent/complainant, on instructions from the respondent, who is present in Court, fairly acknowledges factum of compromise arrived inter se parties. He states that parties have settled the dispute for a sum of

¶19

2024:HHC:6291

¶20

¶21

Rs.70,000/-, out of which, Rs.13400/- has been received by the respondent/complainant today in Court, whereas, amount of Rs.56,600/lying deposited with the learned trial Court as well as with the Registry of this Court has been agreed to be released in favour of respondent/complainant. He states that in case aforesaid amount is ordered to be released in favour of respondent/complainant, he shall have no objection in compounding the offence.

¶22

Since parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them, as has been taken note hereinabove, coupled with the fact that respondent/complainant has no objection in compounding the offence, in the event of his being released the amount lying deposited with the learned trial Court as well as Registry of this Court, 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

¶23

Damodar S. Prabhu V. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663 , wherein it

¶24

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 by the Courts below.

¶25

Consequently, in view of the above, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and sentence dated

¶26

2024:HHC:6291

¶27

¶28

18.01.2024 and 04.08.2022/15.09.2022, passed by the Courts below are quashed and set aside 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. Amount of Rs.41,000/-lying deposited with the learned trial Court and Rs.15,600/- lying deposited with the Registry of this Court, is ordered to be released in favour of the respondent-complainant by remitting the same in his saving bank account, detail whereof shall be furnished by his counsel within one week.

¶29

Since respondent/complainant was compelled to engage in unwarranted litigation with the petitioner/accused for realization of his own money, petitioner-accused is directed to deposit 5% of the Cheque amount with the H.P. State Legal Service Authority as compounding fee, within a period of four weeks, failing which, petitioner/accused shall render himself for penal consequences as well as Contempt of Court.

¶30

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶31

August 02, 2024 (Rajeev Raturi)

Atul Shukla v. Som Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atul Shukla v. Som Kumar

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

Ranjeet Singh Mehta Vs Joginder Singh

Prem Gaurav Vs Sarita Rana

Shisham Kumar Vs Bisheshar Lal

Ashish Sharma Vs State of Hp

Shankar Singh Vs State of Hp and Another

Aryan Sharma Vs State of Hp and Others