(2025) ibclaw.in 03 HC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Kiran
v.
Inder Pal Singh and Anr.
Cr. Revision No.723 of 2024
Decided on 01-Jan-25
Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi
Add. Info:
For Appellant(s): Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Lokesh Thakur, Advocate, Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, Additional Advocate
Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral)
In the instant Revision Petition, an application under Section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as “the N.I. Act”), i.e., Cr.MP No.5532 of 2024, for compounding of offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, has been filed by the petitioner. From perusal of the application, it is evident that the matter inter se parties stands compromised as the applicant/petitioner has deposited Rs.1,90,000/- before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.3, Mandi, as a full and final payment. No reply thereto is to be filed as the matter inter se the parties stands compromised.
2. Briefs facts giving rise to the case at hand are that on a complaint filed by the present respondent against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.3, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., in Criminal Complaint No.25 of 2021, the petitioner had been convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,80,000/- to the complainant and in default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 20 days.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.06.2024, the present petitioner had preferred Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 2024. The said appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 03.10.2024.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the present petitioner had preferred present Criminal Revision before this Court.
5. During pendency of the present Revision Petition, the petitioner had compromised the matter with the respondent.
6. In order to settle the matter with the respondent, the petitioner has already deposited Rs.1,90,000/- before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.3, Mandi, as a full and final payment.
7. Consequently in view of aforesaid, this Court finds no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner through application (Cr.M.P. No. 5532 of 2024) for compounding of the offence and the same is allowed. The matter is ordered to be compounded inter se parties. Impugned judgments of conviction and order of sentence passed by both the learned Courts below are quashed and set aside. Petitioner-accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
8. In terms of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663, the petitioner was required to pay compounding fee i.e. 15 % of the cheque amount as costs. However, taking into account the fact that the petitioner is a widow and is not financially sound, the compounding fee, in the case at hand, is reduced to 5% of the cheque amount. The same be paid to the H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Kusumpati, Shimla- 9, H.P., within a period of four weeks from today.
9. Report qua deposit of 5% of the cheque amount with HP State Legal Services Authority be sought from the concerned authority on or before 04.03.2025. In the meanwhile, petitioner is also free to place copy of receipt qua payment made to the HP State Legal Services Authority.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent is free to move an application for release of amount before the learned Trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant would have no objection, if such an application is filed.
11. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
( Bipin Chander Negi)
Judge
January 01, 2025
Original judgment copy is available here.
Follow for daily updates: