Allowed

Rakesh Narnol v. Khatri Ram and Anr.

Himachal Pradesh HC10 Sept 2024CR.R/209/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC, the court permitted compounding of a cheque bounce offence after conviction. Petitioner deposited full compensation and agreed to litigation charges, allowing the court to quash conviction sentences and acquit him under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgments of conviction and sentence quashed; Petitioner acquitted; Deposited compensation released to Complainant; Petitioner directed to pay Rs.10,000 litigation charges and 2% of cheque am

Rakesh Narnol Vs Khatri Ram and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

2024:HHC:8629

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr. Revision No.209 of 2023 Date of Decision: 10.09.2024

¶4

__________________________________________________________________________ Rakesh Narnol ……...Petitioner Versus Khatri Ram and Another …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Shyam Singh Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.2/State.

¶5

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶6

Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, lays challenge to judgment dated 09.03.2023 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.49-Cr.A./10 of 2021, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.10.2021 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, in criminal complaint No.728/3 of 2015, whereby learned Court below, while holding petitioneraccused (hereinafter ‘accused’) guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘Act’) convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a

¶7

2024:HHC:8629

¶8

¶9

period of two years and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2,30,000/- to the respondent-complainant (hereinafter ‘complainant).

¶10

Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that complainant filed 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 amounting to Rs.1,34,800/-, 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 by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 05.10.2021, held the accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as per the description given hereinabove.

¶12

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Court below, accused preferred an appeal in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, Himachal Pradesh, which came to be partly allowed vide judgment dated 09.03.2023, whereby learned Appellate Court held that the sentence passed by the learned trial Court is on higher side. Accordingly, the learned Appellate Court reduced the sentence to six months and fine amount to Rs.1,75,000/-. In the aforesaid background, present accused has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, seeking therein

¶13

2024:HHC:8629

¶14

¶15

his acquittal after setting aside the judgments of conviction recorded by the courts below.

¶16

Vide order dated 21.04.2023, this Court suspended the substantive sentence imposed by the learned trial Court below subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- within a period of six weeks.

¶17

On 08.08.2023, learned counsel for the accused informed the Court that accused had deposited sum of Rs.85,000/- with the learned trial Court and as per order dated 10.01.2024, accused deposited sum of Rs.50,000/- with the Registry of this Court.

¶18

Today, during proceedings of the case, learned counsel for the accused, states that accused is ready and willing to make payment of entire compensation amount awarded by the learned Appellate Court. He states that since accused has no objection in case, amounts lying deposited with the Registry of this Court as well as learned trial Court are ordered to be released in favour of the complainant, this Court while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act may proceed to compound the offence and acquit the accused from the charge framed against him.

¶19

Mr. Shyam Singh Chauhan, Advocate, on instructions, states that in case, entire amount of compensation lying deposited with the learned trial Court as well as Registry of this Court is ordered to be released in favour of the complainant, he shall have no objection in compounding the offence. However, some amount of litigation charges may be awarded in favour of complainant because he was unnecessarily dragged into litigation for realization of his own money.

¶20

2024:HHC:8629

¶21

¶22

Since parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them, as has been taken note hereinabove, coupled with the fact that complainant has no objection in compounding the offence, in the event of his being released the amount lying deposited with the Registry of this Court as well as learned trial Court, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the accused for compounding the offence, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act as well as in terms of guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Cou rt 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

Consequently, in view of the above, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and sentence dated 09.03.2023 and 05.10.2021, 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. The petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any.

¶24

Entire compensation amount deposited by the petitioneraccused with the learned trial Court as well as Registry of this Court is ordered to be released in favour of complainant by remitting the same in his bank account, detail whereof, shall be furnished within a period of one week.

¶25

2024:HHC:8629

¶26

¶27

Since complainant was compelled to engage in unwarranted litigation with the accused for realization of his own amount, accused is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant within a period of six weeks. Besides above, accused is directed to deposit 2% of the Cheque amount with the H.P. State Legal Service Authority as compounding fee, within the same period, failing which, he shall render himself liable for penal consequences as well as contempt of Court.

¶28

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge

¶29

September 10, 2024 (Rajeev Raturi)

Rakesh Narnol v. Khatri Ram and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Narnol v. Khatri Ram and Anr.

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

Naina Vs State of Hp

Aditya @Ishu Vs State of Hp

Yogindra Kapoor Vs State of Hp and Another

Madan Lal @ Vipan Kumar Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Muni Lal Vs Lalit Kumar

Kanti Vijay Singh Vs State of Hp