Jai Parkash Vs Rakesh Kumar

Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, lays challenge to judgment dated 16.10.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No. 2-D/X/2019 titled Jai Parkash Vs. Rakesh, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.02.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. II, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P., in Criminal Complaint No. 112-III/2014 titled Rakesh Vs. Jai Parkash, whereby court below, while holding petitioner-accused held 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 period of one year and pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,50,000/- to the respondent-complainant.

¶11

2

¶12

Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that respondent/complainant (for short ‘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. 2,50,000/- in favour of the complainant, but fact remains that aforesaid cheque on its presentation, was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. Since petitioner-accused failed to make the payment good within the time stipulated in the legal notice, complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings before the competent Court of law under Section 138 of the Act.

¶13

Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 08.02.2019, 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.

¶14

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by the learned court below, accused preferred an appeal in the court of Additional Sessions Judge-III, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 16.10.2020, 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

3

¶16

Before case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merits, parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them. As per compromise, Rs. 2,75,000/- out of Rs. 3,50,000/- awarded by the court below stands already paid to the complainant, whereas petitioneraccused has no objection in releasing Rs. 75,000/- lying deposited with the trial court in favour of the complainant.

¶17

On account of amicable settlement arrived inter se parties, petitioner-accused has filed an application under Section 147 of the Act, praying therein to compound the offence, which is taken on record. Registry is directed to register the same.

¶18

Bare perusal of averments contained in the application clearly establishes factum with regard to compromise. Mr. Arush Matlotia, learned representing the complainant states that since petitioner-accused has agreed to pay the entire amount of compensation awarded by the court below and sum of Rs. 2,75,000/- already stands received by the complainant, complainant shall have no objection in compounding the offence if the sum of Rs. 75,000/- lying deposited with the trial court is ordered to be released in his favour.

¶19

Since parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them, as noticed hereinabove, this court finds no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner-accused 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 Cou rt in

¶20

Damodar S. Prabhu V. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663 , wherein it has been categorically held that court, while exercising power under

¶21

4

¶22

Section 147 of the Act, can proceed to compound the offence even after recording of conviction by the courts below.

¶23

Consequently, in view of the discussion made hereinabove as well as law taken into consideration, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and sentence dated 08.02.2019 and 16.10.2020, 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, discharged. The petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any. Trial court is directed to release Rs. 75,000/lying with it in favour of the complainant by remitting the same in his bank account, details whereof, shall be furnished within a period of one week.

¶24

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge

¶25

June 13, 2024 (sunil)

Jai Parkash v. Rakesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Parkash v. Rakesh Kumar

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

Piyush Sharma Vs Shilpa Upadhyay

Sulakhan Singh Vs State of Hp

Shri Kant Vs The Manager Hp State Ardb

Narayan Dass Chauhan Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Tahseen Gul Vs State of Hp

Jaideep and Others Vs Sonia