Tarun Sharma vs S.K. Arnoldt

Sandeep Sharma, J

Instant criminal revision petition filed under S.397 read with S.401 CrPC, lays challenge to judgment dated 27.2.2020 passed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge-I, Solan, Himachal Pradesh in Cr. Appeal No. 16-S/10 of 2017, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

31.8.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.1, Solan, Himachal Pradesh in Case No. 105-3 of 2013, whereby learned Courts

below, while holding petitioner-accused (hereinafter, ‘accused’) guilty of having committed offence punishable under S.138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act (hereinafter, ‘Act’), convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay

compensation double the amount of cheque i.e. Rs.19.00 Lakh.

Precisely, the facts as emerge from the record are that the respondent-complainant (hereinafter, ‘complainant’) instituted a complaint under

S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter, ‘Act’) against the petitioner-accused (hereinafter, ‘accused’) in the court of

learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 1, Solan alleging therein that he had advanced a loan of Rs.9.50 Lakh on the request of the petitioner-

accused, who in turn issued cheque bearing No. 762286, dated 6.4.3013 amounting to Rs.9,50,000/-, drawn on A/c No. 118211021065, maintained with

Dena Bank, Solan. However, fact remains that the said cheque on its presentation was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. Since despite

having received statutory notice, petitioner-accused failed to return the aforesaid amount to the respondent/complainant, complainant was compelled to

approach the court of law, by way of complaint under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which ultimately came to be allowed vide judgment

dated 31.8.2017. Vide aforesaid judgment, learned trial Court while holding petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offences punishable under

S.138 of the Act ibid, sentenced him as per description given herein above.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid judgment of conviction passed by learned trial Court, petitioner-accused preferred an appeal in the

court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Solan, but the same was also dismissed vide judgment dated 27.2.2020. In the aforesaid backdrop,

petitioner-accused has approached this Court in the present proceedings praying therein for quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment/order of

conviction and sentence.

Vide order dated 29.5.2020, this Court, suspended the substantive sentence subject to deposit of 30% of the amount of compensation. During

pendency of the revision petition, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner while making available copy of compromise allegedly arrived inter se

parties, contended that since the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably, an application under S.147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is

being filed, praying therein to compound the offence and accordingly, this Court adjourned the matter enabling parties to the needful.

Today, during proceedings of the case, an application under S.147 of the Act ibid enclosing therewith compromise has been presented, which is

taken on record. Registry to register the same. Perusal of aforesaid application as well as compromise enclosed therewith clearly reveals that parties

have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them whereby respondent-complainant has agreed to receive a sum of Rs.7.50 Lakh towards

final settlement instead of Rs.19.00 Lakh awarded by learned Courts below.

Mr. S.K. Arnoldt, respondent-complainant who is present in court, is duly represented by Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Advocate. Respondent-

complainant stated on oath that he of his own volition, without there being external pressure has entered into compromise with the petitioner, whereby

both have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them. He states that he has received three cheques from the petitioner i.e. two cheques

amounting to Rs.1.50 Lakh each and one cheque amounting to Rs.1.30 Lakh. Complainant further stated that in case amount lying deposited with the

learned Courts below i.e. Rs.2.50 Lakh with appellate court and Rs.70,000/- with the trial Court, are also ordered to be released in his favour, he shall

have no objection in case judgment/order of conviction and sentence passed by learned Courts below are set aside and petitioner is acquitted. He has

identified his signatures on the compromise annexed with the application. His statement is taken on record.

Having perused aforesaid statement of complainant coupled with the fact that amount offered by accused i.e. Rs.7.50 Lakh towards full and final

settlement has been accepted by the complainant, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made in the instant petition especially in view

of power vested in this Court under S.147 of the Act and guidelines laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H.

(2010) 5 SCC 663,. Needless to say, Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment (supra) has categorically held that power under S.147 of the Act ibid can be

exercised even in those cases, where accused stands convicted.

Consequently, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu (supra), present petition is allowed. Impugned

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

punishable under S.138 of the Act ibid. Bails bonds, if any, furnished by him are discharged.

Learned trial Court and the appellate court are directed to release the amounts deposited by the accused, alongwith upto date interest, in favour of

the complainant, on his making a formal application in this regard.

The petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms, alongwith all pending applications, if any.

Copy Dasti.