Smt. Bhago Devi vs M/s Dashmesh General Cycle Store

Cr.MP(M) No.28 of 2018

Mr. B.R.Sharma, learned counsel representing the respondent, on the instructions, having been imparted to him by his client, Sh. Avtar Singh,

who is present in Court, stated that he has no objection in case the delay in maintaining the instant criminal revision petition is condoned.

Consequently, in view of the averments contained in the application as well as statement having been made by learned counsel for the respondent,

delay of 161 days in maintaining the present petition is condoned. Criminal Revision Petition be registered. Application stands disposed of.

Cr. Revision No.25 of 2018.

Instant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the

judgment dated 31.07.2017, passed by learned Sessions Judge Solan, District Solan, H.P in Criminal Appeal No. 3-NL/10 of 2017, affirming the

judgment of conviction and sentence dated 5.11.2016/3.12.2016, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, District

Solan, H.P. in criminal complaint No.220/3 of 2013, whereby learned trial Court, while holding petitioner-accused guilty of having committed an

offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, convicted and sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for a

period of six months and to pay a sum of Rs.88,000/-, as compensation to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of

this order.

Briefly stated facts, as emerged from the record are that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the complainant), filed a complaint under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., alleging therein that accused had approached the complainant for purchase of tyres of truck on credit basis and

accordingly on his request, complainant sold tyres to the accused worth Rs. 88,000/- on credit basis and the accused assured for timely payment

against such purchase of tyres. Accused with a view to discharge her liability issued a cheque dated 22.9.2013, amounting to Rs. 88,000/- in

favour of the complainant drawn at State Bank of Patiala, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., however fact remains that on presentation, cheque issued

by the accused was dishonoured on account of ""insufficient funds"" in the account of the accused. Since, the accused failed to make the payment

good despite opportunity having been afforded by the complainant by way of legal notice, he was compelled to initiate proceedings under Section

138 of the Act, in the competent Court of law.

Subsequently, learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, came to the conclusion that the

present petitioner-accused is guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act, and accordingly convicted and

sentenced her, as per the description already given supra.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court, present petitioner-

accused filed an appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of learned Sessions Judge Solan, which came to be

registered as Cr. Appeal No3- NL/10 of 2017, however fact remains that same was dismissed, as a result of which, the judgment of conviction

recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, present petitioner-accused approached this Court by way of

instant Criminal Revision Petition, praying for her acquittal after quashing and setting-aside the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below.

Today, during the proceedings of the case, learned counsel representing the parties moved an application under Section 147 of the Act, for

compounding the offence/case in question, which is taken on record and Registry is directed to register the same. Learned counsel representing the

parties, on instructions of their respective clients, who are present in Court, stated that parties have amicably settled the matter and in view of the

compromise arrived inter-se the parties, entire compensation amount stands paid to the complainant.

Mr. B.R.Sharma, learned counsel, on instructions of complainant namely Avtar Singh, proprietor M/s Dashmesh General Cycle Store, Ropar,

categorically stated that the complainant has no objection in case the conviction and sentence recorded by the leaned courts below are quashed

and set-aside and accused is acquitted of the charge framed against her. Learned counsel for the parties further stated that since parties have

compromised the matter amicably and as such, instant matter can be ordered to be compounded in terms of the law laid down by the Hon''ble

Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H.(2010)5 SCC 663.

Though, perusal of the averments contained in the application, which has been signed by both the parties, suggest that parties have amicably

settled the matter inter-se between them, but this Court with a view to ascertain the genuineness and correctness of the averments contained in the

application, also recorded the statements of the parties, who are present in court. Both the parties present in court stated on oath that they have

amicably settled the matter without there being any external pressure and they have no objection in case the instant matter is ordered to be

compounded in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu case supra. Their statements are taken on

record.

Consequently, in view of the averments contained in the application, which is duly supported by affidavits of respondent/complainant namely Sh.

Avtar Singh and son of the petitioner namely Rafiq Mohd, this court sees no impediment in accepting the aforesaid prayer having been made by

learned counsel for the parties to the lis. Accordingly, the judgments of conviction and sentence passed by the learned courts below are quashed

and set-aside. The accused is acquitted of the charge so framed against her under Section 138 of the Act.

At this stage, learned counsel representing the petitioner stated that since the petitioner/accused is in judicial custody since 1.1.2018, she be

released forthwith. Registry is directed to issue release warrant forthwith. The petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any.