Parveen Mayer Vs Jitender Singh

¶1

1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶3

Cr. Revision No. 397 of 2023

¶4

Decided on : 2.9.2025

¶5

Parveen Mayer …Petitioner Versus Jitender Singh …Respondent ___________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting?

¶6

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. Jagmohan Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Chauhan, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner Parveen Mayer has filed the present petition, against the judgment dated 19.6.2023, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Court’), in Criminal Appeal No. 59-S/10 of 2022, titled as, ‘Parveen Mayer versus Jitender Singh’.

¶8

2

¶9

By way of judgment dated 19.6.2023, learned Appellate Court has dismissed the aforesaid appeal.

¶10

The said appeal was preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 12.8.2022, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. 6, Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in Cr. Complaint No. 170-3 of 2017, titled as, ‘Jitender Singh versus Parveen Mayer’.

¶11

By way of judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as referred to above, the learned trial Court has convicted the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’) for the commission of offence, punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the N.I. Act’) and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment, for a period of one month and to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,40,000/- to the complainant.

¶12

During the pendency of the Cr. Revision, before this Court, as per the stand taken by the parties, the

¶13

3

¶14

matter has been compromised between the parties. This fact has been demonstrated from Cr.M.P. No. 3890 of 2025, which has been moved by learned counsel for the petitioner, before this Court, in which, he has prayed that permission to compound the offence may kindly be accorded.

¶15

The petitioner has appeared before this Court today and stated, on oath, that the matter has been settled with the respondent, with regard to cheque No. 748642 dated 8.3.2017 and now, nothing is due against him.

¶16

The petitioner has further deposed that he has deposited a sum of Rs. 68,000/- with the Registry of this Court and a sum of Rs. 72,000/- with the learned trial Court. He has further deposed that he has no objection, in case the aforesaid amount, deposited by him, with the Registry of this Court, as well as, with the learned trial Court, is ordered to be released in favour of the complainant.

¶17

4

¶18

The learned counsel, appearing for the respondent has made statement, without oath, acknowledging the factual position, as asserted by the petitioner, in his statement. He has prayed, on behalf of the respondent, that the amount, so deposited by the petitioner, with the Registry of this Court, as well as, with the learned trial Court, be ordered to be released in favour of the complainant.

¶19

Lastly, he has stated that he has instructions to state that the respondent has no objection, in case the present petition is allowed by acquitting the petitioner from the commission of offence, punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

¶20

Keeping in view the fact that the parties to the lis have compromised the matter, Cr.M.P. No.3890 of 2025 is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to compound the offence.

¶21

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, referred to above,

¶22

5

¶23

passed by the learned trial Court, and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court, and accused is acquitted from the offence, punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, subject to payment of 12% of the cheque amount, as compounding fee. 50% of the compounding fee shall be deposited by the petitioner/accused with the Member Secretary, H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Shimla, and remaining 50% of the amount shall be deposited by him with the H.P. High Court Staff Welfare Organization, Shimla, within six weeks, from today.

¶24

The petitioner has filed Cr. M.P. No. 3721 of 2025 for release of the amount, so deposited by the petitioner, as referred to above. Consequently, the application is allowed and the amount of Rs. 68,000/deposited by the petitioner, with the Registry of this Court and Rs. 72,000/-, with the learned trial Court, is ordered to be released in favour of the complainant/respondent, by remitting the same to his

¶25

6

¶26

Saving bank account, particulars of which are mentioned in Cr. M.P. No. 3721 of 2025.

¶27

It is further clarified that in case of failure to deposit the compounding fee, within the prescribed period, the Cr. Revision shall be deemed to have been dismissed and judgment of conviction and order of sentence, shall revive automatically, and the petitioner shall surrender before the learned trial Court to serve out the substantive sentence, imposed by the learned trial Court.

¶28

The present Cr. Revision, is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The bail bonds furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.

¶29

(Virender Singh) Judge

¶30

September 2, 2025 (Kalpana)

Parveen Mayer v. Jitender Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parveen Mayer v. Jitender Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Alam Chand Vs Tilak Raj Palta

Kali Dass Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Ranjana Rawat Vs State of Hp

Kulveer Vs State of Hp

Gurdeep Singh Vs State of Hp