D.P. Goel vs Ramesh Chand Sharma And Others

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

By way of this revision petition filed under Section 397, read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer has been made for setting

aside the judgment, dated 24.04.2017, passed by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur,

H.P. in Criminal Case No. 203/1 of 2011, vide which, the present petitioner stood convicted under the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act as also for setting aside the judgment, dated 30.10.2020, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at

Nahan, H.P. in Cr. Appeal No. 32-N/10 of 2017, vide which, learned Appellate Court affirmed the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court by

dismissing the appeal.

Today, learned counsel for the parties inform the Court that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and in this background, the

complainant/respondent No. 1 does not has any objection in case the offence is ordered to be compounded by this Court. The Court further stands

informed that in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties, an amount of Rs.2,07,000/- has been paid by the petitioner to the

complainant. The petitioner has no objection in the release of Rs.60,000/- deposited before the learned Trial Court in favour of the

complainant/respondent No. 1 and further an amount of Rs.33,000/- is being paid today itself by way of Bank Draft No. 444702, dated 21.08.2021

(Code No. 2794) respondent No. 1 through learned counsel. The Bank Draft of Rs.33,000/- has been handed over to learned counsel for respondent

No. 1 in the Court itself. It is ordered that on an application, which shall be filed by respondent No. 1/complainant before the learned Court below, the

amount of Rs.60,000/- deposited by the petitioner therein, be released in favour of the complainant/respondent No. 1 alongwith up-to-date interest, as

may have accrued.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of said development, it will be in the interest of justice in case this Court exercises its power

of compounding the offence in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5

Supreme Court Cases 663. He further submits that as the petitioner has made good the amount due to the respondent, it will be in the interest of

justice, in case in terms of para-25 of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (supra), the compounding fee of the cheque amount is

modified taking into consideration the peculiar facts of the case and the financial condition of the petitioner. He assures the Court that in case the

offence is compounded by this Court, then the compounding fee shall be paid by the petitioner within the time so granted by the Court.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and taking into consideration the fact that the matter which led to filing of the criminal case under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, now stands settled between the parties, this Court orders the compounding of the offence in question,

subject to the payment of 10% of the cheque amount as compounding fee by the petitioner, which shall be deposited by the petitioner with State Legal

Services Authority, Shimla within a period of eight weeks from today. Let a compliance affidavit in this regard be thereafter filed by the petitioner with

the Registrar (Judicial). Accordingly, the sentence imposed upon the petitioner by the learned Trial Court, as affirmed by the learned Appellate Court

is set aside.

The petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

Copy dasti.