Rajender Singh Vs Videsh Sharma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Criminal Revision No.73 of 2024 Date of Decision: 03.07.2024

_______________________________________ Rajender Singh	_____ …	____ ….P	_______ etitioner
Versus
Videsh Sharma	…	Res	pondent
_______________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹	_____	____	_______
For the Petitioner: Mr. Mohd. Aamir,	Advoc	ate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajiv Rai Sharma, Advocat	and es.	Mr.	Mukesh
_______________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):	_____	_____	______

¶4

Instant petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, lays challenge to judgment dated 06.11.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushehr, District Shimla, H.P in Cr. Appeal No. 21 of 2023, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.03.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Anni, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh in case No.31 of 2016, whereby learned trial Court, while holding the petitioner-accused (hereinafter, ‘accused’) guilty of having committed offence punishable under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, convicted

¶5

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶6

2

¶7

and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondent -complainant ( hereinafter, ‘complainant’).

¶8

Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that the respondent instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short Act) in the competent Court of law, alleging therein that cheque bearing No.283233, dated 20.09.2015, amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Sungra, having been issued by the petitioneraccused towards discharge of his lawful liability was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the bank account of the accused. Since, despite having received legal notice, accused failed to make the payment good well within stipulated time, complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act in the competent Court of law.

¶9

Learned trial court on the basis of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, held the accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under S. 138 of Act and accordinigly convicted and sentenced him as per description given herein above.

¶10

Though, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court, accused preferred an appeal in the court of learned Additional

¶11

3

¶12

Sessions Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushehr, District Shimla, H.P., but same was dismissed. In the aforesaid background, accused has approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for his acquittal after setting aside judgments of conviction and order of sentence passed by both the learned Courts below.

¶13

Vide order dated 13.02.2024, this Court suspended the substantive sentence imposed upon the accused by learned trial Court, subject to the petitioner-accused depositing 30% of the compensation amount and furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-, with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. Before aforesaid order could be complied with, parties have entered into the compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle dispute amicably interse them.

¶14

Today, during the proceedings of the case, learned counsel representing the petitioner states that sum of Rs. 1, 60,000/has been already paid to the respondent/complainant, whereas sum of Rs. 40,000/- is lying deposited with the learned trial Court. He states that amount deposited with the learned trial Court can be ordered to be released in favour of the respondent-complainant and thereafter this Court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, may proceed to compound the offence and acquit the accused of charge framed against him under Section 138 of the Act.

¶15

4

¶16

Mr. Mukesh Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent,

¶17

on instructions of the respondent-complainant, who is present in Court, submits that, respondent-complainant shall have no objection in compounding the offence in case, amount lying deposited with the learned trial Court, is ordered to be released in his favour.

¶18

Though, no application under Section 147 of the Act has been filed by the petitioner for compounding the offence, despite sufficient opportunity granted for the purpose, however, this Court has sufficient power to compound the offence under Section 147 of the Act, especially when the complainant is ready and willing for the same, as has been fairly stated by the learned counsel for respondent- complainant.

¶19

Having taken note of the fact that entire amount of compensation has been agreed to be paid to the respondentcomplainant and respondent 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 Court 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

¶20

5

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

Learned trial Court is directed to release the amount lying deposited with it in favour of the respondent-complainant on his filing appropriate application.

¶24

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶25

July 03,2024 (shankar)

Rajender Singh v. Videsh Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajender Singh v. Videsh Sharma

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

Jitender Singh and Another Vs State of Hp and Another

Aupama Gupta Vs Pankaj Goel

Madhu Sudan Vs Mithun Singh

Ajesh Kumar Vs State of Hp

Dheeraj Kumar and Another Vs State of Hp and Others

Desh Raj Vs Simro Devi