Ravi Thakur vs M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Services Ltd

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

Present revision petition has been filed assailing judgment dated 20.04.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Shimla, District Shimla

H.P., in Cr. Appeal No. 35A-S/10 of 2018, whereby judgment/order dated 28.06.2018/02.07.2018, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,

Court No.V, Shimla, District Shimla, in criminal case RBT No. 200-3 of 2015 convicting and sentencing the petitioner/accused to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay compensation of Rs.4,60,000/- to the complainant has been affirmed.

Learned vice counsel for respondent, under instructions of Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate, who is original counsel for respondent, has stated, in her

statement, that as per instructions received from respondent, she has been instructed to depose that matter has been settled with petitioner and as per

settlement, petitioner has paid Rs.2,51,000/- to respondent and in turn, respondent has agreed to compound the matter in present case and for that

purpose, she has been instructed to withdraw the complaint filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, in terms of compromise and

therefore, as instructed, she has prayed to permit the respondent to withdraw his complaint and to record no objection of respondent for compounding

the case and acquitting the petitioner because, as per instructions, nothing is to be recovered from petitioner. She has further stated that she has made

the statement strictly in accordance with instructions imparted to her by learned original counsel for respondent.

3 In view of aforesaid statement made by learned vice counsel for respondent, respondent/complainant is permitted to withdraw the complaint and

matter is compounded and complaint arising out of dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act is treated to be withdrawn

and judgments of conviction and sentence passed by learned Courts below are quashed and set aside. Petitioner/accused is acquitted of the accusation

framed against him.

5 Learned counsel for the pe titioner has also prayed for imposing the lesser amount of compounding fee instead of 15% of cheque amount. It is also

submitted by him that considering the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Damodar S.Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H. (2010)5 SCC 663, as

clarified by the Apex Court in Madhya Pradesh Legal Services Authority vs. Prateek Jain and another (2014)10 SCC 690 wherein it has been held

that Court may reduce compounding fee for given facts and circumstances of a particular case, present case is a fit case of exemption of

compounding fee.

Considering facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that it is an appropriate case to impose lesser compounding fee. Therefore,

petitioner is directed to deposit compounding fee of Rs.25,000/- instead of 15% of cheque amount, with the H.P. State Legal Services Authority,

Shimla within four weeks from today.

After depositing compounding fee/cost, petitioner shall place copy of receipt of deposit on record of this petition. In case of default in depositing

compounding fee/cost with H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Shimla within stipulated period, the judgments of conviction and sentence shall

automatically revive.

Petition stands disposed of, in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy of this judgment be also sent to H.P. State Lagal

Services Authority, Shimla.