Suman Kumar Vs Sher Singh and Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Criminal Revision No.167 of 2017 Date of Decision: 13.7.2026

Suman Kumar

……...Petitioner Versus Sher Singh (deceased through LRs) ….….Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr.Avinash Jaryal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Nemo for respondent No.1. Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for respondent No.2.

¶5

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶6

Instant criminal revision petition, lays challenge to judgment

¶7

dated 9.3.2017, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (II) Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No. 33/2013, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.11.2013, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Jogindernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh in complaint No. 71-III/2007, whereby the learned trial Court while holding the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short the “Act"), convicted and sentenced him to

¶8

2

¶9

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant.

¶10

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that respondent-complainant instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act, in the court of competent court of law, alleging therein that accused with a view to discharge his liability issued cheque amounting to Rs.70,000/-, in his favour, 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, respondent/complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings before the competent Court of law under Section 138 of the Act.

¶11

3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 21.11.2013 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 herein above.

¶12

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by the court below, accused preferred an appeal in the court of learned first appellate court, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 9.3.2017, as a consequence of which, judgment of

¶13

3

¶14

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

5. Mr. Avinash Jaryal, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused, states that since compensation amount i.e. Rs. 50,000/- already stands deposited with the learned trial Court coupled with the fact that petitioner has no objection in case afore amount is released in favour of the respondents, this Court while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, may proceed to compound the offence and acquit the accused. 6. It is pertinent to take note of the fact that complainant Sher Singh has expired during the proceedings before the learned first appellate Court and his legal heirs also stand brought on record. Firstly, on 10.7.2017, notices were issued returnable for 28.8.2017, but neither respondents No. 1 (i) to (v)/LRs of the respondent-complainant came present nor there was any representation on their behalf. On 28.8.2017, this court admitted the matter and issued post admission notices to the afore LRs/respondents, but again none appeared. It appears that they are not interested in prosecuting the case further. Since petitioner has already deposited the compensation amount coupled with the fact that respondents No. 1 (i) to (v) are not coming forward, this court sees no impediment in

¶16

4

¶17

accepting the prayer made by the petitioner for compounding the offence under Section 147 of the Act even if respondents are not coming forward to impart instructions, however, it would be in the interest of justice to award some litigation cost in their favour.

¶18

7. Having taken note of the fact that entire amount of compensation has been agreed to be paid to the respondents, 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 Cour t 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 147 of the Act, can proceed to compound the offence even after recording of conviction by the courts below.

¶19

8. Consequently, in view of the above, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and sentence dated 21.11.2013 and 9.3.2017, passed by the learned 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. Since respondent-complainant was unnecessarily compelled to institute legal proceedings against the accused that too for realization of his own money, this court deems it fit to direct the

¶20

5

¶21

accused to pay sum of Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost, in favour of his LRs i.e. respondents No. 1 (i) to (v) equally, payable within six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Apart from above, petitioner shall also be liable to pay sum of Rs.5,000/- as compounding fee with the Himachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, within aforesaid period, failing which, accused besides rendering himself liable for penal consequences would also invite contempt proceedings. As soon as the litigation charges as well as compounding fee are deposited/paid, learned trial Court shall release the amount lying deposited with it in the saving bank accounts of respondents No. 1 (i) to (v) equally, detail whereof shall be provided by the petitioner by way of filing appropriate application before it. Litigation charges of Rs. 10,000/- can also be deposited before the learned trial court so that total amount i.e. (Rs.50,000/- + Rs10,000/- = Rs.60,000/-) gets remitted to them equally. The petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any.

¶22

9. List for compliance on 27.8.2026.

¶23

July 13, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge

Suman Kumar v. Sher Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suman Kumar v. Sher Singh and Another

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

Raman Kumar Vs State of Hp

M/s Crystal Pharmaceuticals Vs State of Hp

Parvej Vs Hpmfdc

Man Mohan Malik Vs the State of Hp and Others

Arjun Lather and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

Gopal Singh Vs Hp State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd. and Another