Jagat Singh Vs Madans Singh

¶1

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:23334 )

¶2

1

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶4

Criminal Revision No. 569 of 2023 Decided on: 18.07.2025

¶5

________________________________________________ Jagat Singh ....Petitioner Versus Madan Singh …Respondent

¶6

Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶7

For the petitioner: Mr. Sarthak Mehta and Mr. Nikhilesh Nagran, Advocates. For the respondent: Mr. Shyam Singh Chauhan, Advocate. ________________________________________________ Sushil Kukreja, Judge (oral)

¶8

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against judgment, dated 16.08.2023, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No. 26-N/10 of 2022, whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 22.02.2022, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Shillai, District Sirmaur, H.P., in Criminal Complaint No. 209/3 of 2019, was affirmed.

¶9

The brief facts, giving rise to the present petition,

¶10

can succinctly be summarized as under:

¶11

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:23334 )

¶13

2

¶14

2(a). The petitioner/accused and the respondent/

¶15

complainant were acquainted with each other and on 14.11.2017 the petitioner requested the complainant to lend him Rs.20,000/- for his personal work and he assured to return the same on or before 28.02.2018. Therefore, the complainant transferred Rs.20,000/- in the bank account of the petitioner. On 11.12.2017 the petitioner again approached the complainant and requested him to lend him Rs.50,000/-. The complainant, on the request of the petitioner, on 11.12.2017 again transferred the desired amount to the petitioner. The petitioner promised to return the total sum of Rs.70,000/- on or before 28.02.2018, but he failed to make the payment on the above date. Thereafter, the petitioner, on one pretext or other, postponed the payment of the aforesaid amount and ultimately on 15.07.2019 he issued cheque bearing no. 161828, dated 25.07.2019 amounting to Rs.70,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Kaffota, in favour of the complainant. However, the aforesaid cheque on being presented by the complainant for encashment, was returned by the Bank with remarks ‘funds insufficient. Thereafter, on 05.09.2019, the complainant issued legal notice to the petitioner, but the petitioner failed

¶16

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:23334 )

¶17

3

¶18

to liquidate his financial liability towards the complainant within the stipulated time. Resultantly, the complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the Act”) before the learned Trial Court.

¶19

The learned Trial Court after conclusion of the trial convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay compensation of Rs.60,000/- to the complainant (Rs.70,000/- cheque amount + Rs.10,000/- for sufferings – (minus) Rs.20,000/-, as paid by the convict during the pendency of the case).

¶20

Being dissatisfied, the accused/petitioner/convict

¶21

preferred an appeal before the learned Lower Appellate Court, which was dismissed, and judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 22.02.2022, passed by the learned Trial Court, were affirmed. Hence, accused/ petitioner/convict-Jagat Singh preferred the instant petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., with a prayer that his petition be allowed and the impugned judgments and order of sentence passed by the learned Courts below be set-aside and he be acquitted.

¶22

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:23334 )

¶23

4

¶24

During the pendency of the instant petition, an application (Cr.MP No. 1355 of 2025) under Section 147 of the Act has been filed by the petitioner-accused, seeking permission of this Court to compound the offence by settingaside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 22.02.2022, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Shillai, District Sirmaur, H.P., in Criminal Complaint No. 209/3 of 2019, and affirmed vide judgment dated 16.08.2023, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No. 26-N/10 of 2022.

¶25

On 27.06.2025 petitioner-accused was present

¶26

before this Court and his statement was recorded. Today, the complainant-respondent is also present before this Court and his statement has been recorded. Both the statements have separately been placed on the file.

¶27

In his statement, the petitioner/accused Jagat

¶28

Singh stated that he has been convicted by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Shillai, District Sirmaur, H.P., vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 22.02.2022, which was further affirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paonta Sahib, District

¶29

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:23334 )

¶30

5

¶31

Sirmaur, H.P., vide judgment, dated 16.08.2023.. He has further stated that now during the pendency of the instant proceedings, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and he has deposited the entire compensation amount, i.e., Rs.60,000/- before learned Trial Court and also before the Registry of this Court. He has also stated that since he has compromised the matter and deposited the entire amount of compensation, therefore, the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.02.2022, which was affirmed by learned Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 16.08.2023, may be quashed and setaside and he may be acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 1348 of the Act.

¶32

Complainant-Shri Madan Singh stated that on his complaint filed under Section 138 of the Act before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shillai, District Sirmaur, H.P., the petitioner was convicted by both the Courts below. However, during the pendency of the instant proceedings, he has deposited/paid the entire cheque amount. Therefore, he has no objection in case the matter is compounded and the judgment of conviction/order of sentence, dated 22.02.2022, passed by learned Judicial

¶33

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:23334 )

¶34

6

¶35

Magistrate First Class, Shillai, District Sirmaur, H.P., which was affirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, vide judgment, dated 16.08.2023, is quashed and set-aside and the respondent is acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the Act.

¶36

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent and gone through the material available on record.

¶37

Having taken note of the fact that the petitioneraccused and the complainant-respondent have settled the matter and the complainant has no objection in compounding the offence, therefore, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the accusedpetitioner 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.

¶38

Sayed Babalal H., (2010) 5 SCC 663 , wherein the Hon’ble

¶39

Apex Court has held as under:-

¶40

“10. At present, we are of course concerned with Section 147 of the Act, which reads as follows:-

¶41

“147. Offences to be compoundable– Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable.”

¶42

At this point, it would be apt to clarify that in view of the non-obstante clause, the compounding of offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is controlled by Section 147 and the scheme contemplated by Section

¶43

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:23334 )

¶44

7

¶45

320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter “CrPC”) will not be applicable in the strict sense since the latter is meant for the specified offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶46

11. So far as the CrPC is concerned, Section 320 deals with offences which are compoundable, either by the parties without the leave of the court or by the parties but only with the leave of the Court. Sub-section (1) of Section 320 enumerates the offences which 9 are compoundable without the leave of the Court, while subsection (2) of the said section specifies the offences which are compoundable with the leave of the Court.

¶47

12. Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is in the nature of an enabling provision which provides for the compounding of offences prescribed under the same Act, thereby serving as an exception to the general rule incorporated in sub-section (9) of Section 320 of the CrPC which states that ‘No offence shall be compounded except as provided by this Section’. A bare reading of this provision would lead us to the inference that offences punishable under laws other than the Indian Penal Code also cannot be compounded. However, since Section 147 was inserted by way of an amendment to a special law, the same will override the effect of Section 320(9) of the CrPC, especially keeping in mind that Section 147 carries a non obstante clause.”

¶48

In K. Subramanian Vs. R. Rajathi ; (2010) 15

¶49

Supreme Court Cases 352 , it has been held by the

¶50

Hon’ble Apex Court that in view of the provisions contained in Section 147 of the Act read with Section 320 of Cr.P.C., compromise arrived at can be accepted even after recording of the judgment of conviction. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:-

¶51

“6. Thereafter a compromise was entered into and the petitioner claims that he has paid Rs. 4,52,289 to the respondent. In support of this claim, the petitioner has produced an affidavit sworn by him on 1.12.2008. The petitioner has also produced an affidavit sworn by P. Kaliappan, Power of attorney holder of R. Rajathi on 1.12.2008 mentioning that he has received a sum of Rs. 4,52,289 due under the dishonoured cheques in full discharge of the value of cheques and he is not willing to prosecute the petitioner.

¶52

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:23334 )

¶53

8

¶54

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner states at the Bar that the petitioner was arrested on 30.7.2008 and has undergone the sentence imposed on him by the trial Court and confirmed by the Sessions Court, the High Court as well as by this Court. The two affidavits sought to be produced by the petitioner as additional documents would indicate that indeed a compromise has taken place between the petitioner and the respondent and the respondent has accepted the compromise offered by the petitioner pursuant to which he has received a sum of Rs.4,52,289. In the affidavit filed by the respondent a prayer is made to permit the petitioner to compound the offence and close the proceedings.

¶55

8. Having regard to the salutary provisions of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court is of the opinion that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the petitioner should be permitted to compound the offence committed by him under Section 138 of the Code.”

¶56

Since, in the instant case, the petitioner-accused after being convicted under Section 138 of the Act, has compromised the matter with the complainant, prayer for compounding the offence can be accepted in terms of the aforesaid judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 13. Therefore, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the application is allowed and matter is ordered to be compounded.

¶57

Accordingly, the present matter is ordered to be compounded and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 22.02.2022, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Fist Class, Shillai, District Sirmaur, H.P., in Criminal Complaint No. 209/3 of 2019, which was affirmed

¶58

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:23334 )

¶59

9

¶60

in appeal by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No. 26-N/10 of 2022, are quashed and set-aside and the petitioneraccused is acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 138 of the Act. Bail bonds, if any, stand discharged.

¶61

The perusal of the records shows that an amount of Rs.26,500/-, which was deposited by the petitioneraccused, in the Registry of this Court, stands released in favour of the complainant and this Court also noted this fact in its order dated 04.11.2024.

¶62

The learned counsel for the complainant prayed that the amount deposited by the petitioner-accused before the learned Trial Court may kindly be released in his favour. In the above backdrop, since the matter has been compromised between the parties, the learned Trial Court is directed to release the amount deposited by the petitioneraccused in favour of the complainant, after due verification.

¶63

Undisputedly, the cheque amount is of Rs.70,000and vide order dated 26.09.2024, the petitioner/accused was directed to deposit 15% of the cheque amount before the H.P. Legal Services Authority, Shimla and which amount he had deposited, with the H.P.

¶64

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:23334 )

¶65

10

¶66

State Legal Services Authority, Kasumpti, Shimla, vide receipt No. 4283, dated 24.01.2025. Thus, the compounding fee, as directed by this Court, stands already deposited by the petitioner-accused.

¶67

Therefore, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the application is allowed and matter is ordered to be compounded . Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 22.02.2022, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Shillai, District Sirmaur, H.P., in Criminal Complaint No. 209/3 of 2019 and affirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panta Sahib, district Sirmaur, H.P., vide judgment, dated 16.08.2023, in Criminal Appeal No. 26-N/10 of 2022, are quashed and setaside and the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 138 of the Act. Bail bonds, if any, stand discharged.

¶68

The petition stands disposed of accordingly, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

Jagat Singh v. Madans Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagat Singh v. Madans Singh

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

Kuldeep Singh and Others Vs State of Hp

Shiv Kumar Vs State of Hp

Abhishek Sharma Vs State of Hp

Praveen Kumar Vs State of Hp

Atul Gupta Vs State of Hp

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Hp