Sanjay Kumar vs Neel Chand

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

Present revision petition has been filed assailing judgment dated 19.12.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu H.P.,

in Cr. Appeal No. 12 of 2019, whereby judgment/order dated 30.07.2019, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Manali, District Kullu, H.P.

in case No.351 of 2016 convicting and sentencing the petitioner/accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay

compensation of Rs.80,000/- to the complainant has been affirmed.

A joint application i.e., Cr.M.P No. 1723 of 2020 has been filed for compounding the case. Application is duly supported by the affidavits of both

the parties and original compromise dated 15th December, 2020 has also been placed on record, whereby it is stated that the matter has been

compromised between the parties and petitioner-accused has made the full and final payment to the complainant except Rs.40,000/- deposited by the

complainant in the trial Court.

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent-complainant, vide separate statement, has reiterated the amicable settlement arrived

at between the parties. He submits that he has instructions to say that except the amount lying deposited in the trial Court i.e. Rs.40,000/-, the

petitioner has made payment of remaining amount to the respondent- complainant and matter has been amicably settled between the parties and in

terms of compromise, the amount lying deposited with the trial Court i.e. Rs.40,000/- is also to be released to the respondent-complainant and in turn,

respondent-complainant has agreed to withdraw the complaint for compounding the case and, therefore, he has instructions to endorse the

compromise and to pray for compounding, after permitting the respondent-complainant to withdraw the complaint. He further submits that his

deposition is strictly in consonance and in compliance of the instructions imparted to him by respondent -complainant.

Mr. Maan Singh, learned counsel for petitioner-accused, in his statement recorded separately has endorsed the compromise as well as statement of

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent-complainant to be true and correct. He has communicated no objection for release of Rs.40,000/-

in favour of respondent-complainant which has been deposited by petitioner-accused in the trial Court.

In view of aforesaid statement made by learned counsel for respondent-complainant, 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.

Mr. Maan Singh, learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner has also submitted that financial condition of the petitioner is very weak and

he has some how manged to pay the remaining amount of compensation to respondent-complainant. Therefore, he deserves to be exempted from the

payment of compounding fee particularly in view of judgments passed by the Supreme Court in Damodar S.Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H. (2010)5

SCC 663 and in Madhya Pradesh Legal Services Authority vs. Prateek Jain and another (2014)10 SCC 690.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances, I do not find the present a fit case for exempting the compounding fee as a whole, however, in the

ends of justice, the petitioner is directed to deposit Rs.2,000/- as compounding fee to the H.P. State Legal Services Authority on or before 15.01.2021.

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.

Trial Court is also directed to release the amount of Rs.40,000/-, deposited by petitioner-accused in case No. 127 of 2016 titled as Neel Chand Vs.

Sanjay Kumar vide Receipt No. 0290341 dated 26.11.2019, along with up-to-date interest if any accrued thereupon, in favour of

respondent/complainant Neel Chand on submission/production of account number before the trial Court along-with copy of this order. It is made clear

that for release of said amount, no fresh notice is required to be issued to accused-petitioner Sanjay Kumar.

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.