Allowed

Jai Prakash v. Union Bank of India

Himachal Pradesh HC4 Sept 2024CR.R/571/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged conviction under Section 138 via criminal revision. Court accepted compromise via One Time Settlement, applied precedent to compound offence after conviction, quashed lower judgments, and acquitted petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgments quashed and set aside; petitioner acquitted; release warrants directed; petitioner directed to deposit 2% of cheque amount as compounding fee.

Jai Prakash Vs Union Bank of India — Cheque Dishonour | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

2024:HHC:7905

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr. Revision No.571 of 2024 Date of Decision: 04.09.2024

Jai Prakash

……...Petitioner

Versus

Union Bank of India

…....Respondent

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?

¶10

For the Petitioner: Mr. Arsh Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Aman Sood, Advocate.

¶11

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶12

Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of BNSS, 2023, lays challenge to judgment dated 08.07.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (I), Kangra at Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.8-D/X/2024, titled Jai Prakash Vs. Union Bank of India and Another , affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.09.2022/21.02.2023, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, in Complaint No.286-III of 2017, 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

¶13

2024:HHC:7905

¶14

¶15

sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.11,50,000/- to the complainant.

¶16

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 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, alleging therein that accused with a view to discharge his liability issued Cheque for a sum of Rs.5,69,049/-, 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.

¶17

Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record

¶18

by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 29.09.2022/21.02.2023, 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.

¶19

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 (I), Kangra at Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated

¶20

2024:HHC:7905

¶21

¶22

08.07.2024, 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.

¶23

Before case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merits, parties have entered into compromise, whereby petitioner/accused has agreed to pay the amount in question to the respondent/complainant.

¶24

Today, during the proceedings of the case, learned counsel representing the petitioner/accused apprised this Court that case of the petitioner has been considered by the respondent/Bank under One Time Settlement Scheme, which fact has been duly acknowledged by learned counsel representing the respondent/complainant. Learned counsel representing the petitioner/accused states that since petitioner has paid the amount in question to the respondent/complainant under One time Settlement Scheme, this Court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act may proceed to compound the offence.

¶25

Mr. Aman Sood, Advocate, while putting in appearance on behalf of respondent/Bank fairly acknowledges factum of compromise arrived inter se parties. He states that since respondent/complainant has

¶26

2024:HHC:7905

¶27

¶28

received amount in question under One Time Settlement Scheme, he has no objection in compounding the offence.

¶29

Having taken note of the fact that parties have compromised the matter, whereby petitioner/accused has paid amount in question under One Time Settlement Scheme, coupled with the fact that respondent/complainant 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

¶30

Cour t in Damodar S. Prabhu V. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663 ,

¶31

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.

¶32

Consequently, in view of the above, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and sentence dated 08.07.2024 and 29.09.2022/21.02.2023, 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.

¶33

Since the petitioner-accused is behind bars, Registry is directed to prepare the release warrants and send the same to the

¶34

2024:HHC:7905

¶35

¶36

concerned Jail Superintendent, forthwith, enabling the aforesaid authority to release the petitioner immediately, subject to verification that he is not required in other case. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any.

¶37

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 2% 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.

¶38

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

September 04, 2024

(Rajeev Raturi)

MAMT
A RAO

Digitally signed by MAMTA RAO DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, OU=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone=36bb51250baa5a51385bbc5a5b4253 14fae384931dc610a63165c9febd25094e, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER=2987d79d0aae1f98d0fd56 63fb63f715a53ab1add092fa3617b76bdc094f6 3d9, CN=MAMTA RAO Reason: I am approving this document Location: Date: 2024-09-04 18:41:30 Foxit Reader Version: 9.0.0

Jai Prakash v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Prakash v. Union Bank of India

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

Harpriya Manhas Vs State of Hp

Harpriya Manhas Vs State of Hp

Deepak Garg Vs State of Hp and Others

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Jitender Singh Alias Ashu Vs State of Hp

Ved Prakash Vs Guru Ram and Others