Chander Dass vs Purshotam

Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 397/401 CrPC is directed against judgment dated 21.10.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Kullu, HP in Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2010, affirming judgment/order of conviction dated 28.10.2010/30.10.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lahaul Spiti at Kullu, Himachal Pradesh in Cr. Complaint No. 148-I of 2008/ 24-III of 2008, whereby learned trial Court, while holding petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (''Act'' for short), convicted and sentenced the petitioner-accused to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Briefly stated the facts as emerge from the record are that respondent-complainant (hereinafter, ''complainant'') filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lahaul Spiti at Kullu stating therein that in fruit season of 2005, petitioner-accused purchased pears from the complainant and in lieu thereof, issued cheque bearing No. 217204 dated 23.9.2005 amounting to Rs.1.00 Lakh drawn at Kangra Central Co-operative Bank, Branch Khakhnal. However, the fact remains that on presentation of aforesaid cheque, it was dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account of the petitioner-accused. Accordingly, complainant got issued legal notice served upon the petitioner-accused calling upon him to make payment, within 15 days but since the petitioner-accused failed to make payment in terms of notice, complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act, in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lahaul Spiti at Kullu.

Learned trial Court below, on the basis of material adduced on record by the complainant, held the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay compensation of Rs.2.00 Lakh. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by learned trial Court below, petitioner-accused preferred an appeal under Section 374 CrPC before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, which came to be registered as Cr. Appeal no. 56 of 2010. Aforesaid appeal was dismissed, as a result of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court below came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, petitioner-accused approached this Court, seeking acquittal after setting aside judgment of conviction recorded by learned trial Court.

On 10.4.2017, learned counsel representing the petitioner stated at Bar that now entire amount in terms of judgment of learned trial Court stands paid to the complainant and instant matter can be ordered to be compounded in terms of judgment passed by Hon''ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663. However, learned counsel representing the complainant sought time to have instructions in the matter.

Today, during the proceedings of the case, Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel representing the complainant stated that, as per instructions received by him, entire amount stands received by the complainant in terms of judgment and he has no objection in case present matter is ordered to be compounded in terms of judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court (Supra).

Learned counsel representing the petitioner also invited attention of this Court to the compromise having been entered into inter se parties, available at page-31 of the paper-book, to demonstrate that entire amount of Rs.2.00 Lakh has been duly received by the complainant.

In view of the aforesaid statement having been made by the learned counsel representing the parties as well as compromise available on record, this Court deems it fit to compound the instant matter in terms of judgment passed by Hon''ble Apex Court (Supra).

Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court (supra), judgments of conviction passed by learned courts below are set-aside and the petitioneraccused is acquitted of the charges framed against him. Bail bonds, if any furnished by the petitioner-accused, are discharged.

The petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any.