Virender Pal Singh vs State Bank Of India & Another

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

In view of order passed by the Supreme Court on 23.03.2020 in suo motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020, present revision petition is to be treated within limitation.

Notice. Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned counsel, appears, waives and accepts service of notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and Mr. Raju Ram Rahi, Deputy Advocate General, on behalf of respondent No.2.

Present Revision Petition has been filed assailing judgment dated 04.12.2020, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No.153 of 2015, titled as Virender Pal Singh vs. State Bank of India & another, whereby judgment and order of conviction dated 01.08.2014, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., in Criminal Complaint No.105-I/2010/92-III/2010, titled as State Bank of India vs. Virender Pal Singh, convicting and sentencing the petitioner-accused to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay compensation amount of Rs.1,60,000/- to the complainant, has been affirmed. Petitioner is stated to be in detention in District Jail Mandi.

Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that entire loan amount including compensation has been paid to the Bank in terms of One Time Settlement (OTS) with respondent No.1-Bank and for payment of entire house loan amount by the petitioner to respondent No.1-Bank, present dispute under Negotiable Instruments Act also stands settled and certificate issued by the Bank to that effect has also been placed on record as Annexure A-1 with this petition, wherein it is certified by the Bank that house loan of the petitioner has been settled under OTS and full and final amount of settlement has been received by the Bank.

Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned counsel, under instructions, has endorsed the aforesaid statement made by the petitioner and has submitted that he has instructions to withdraw the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for compounding the case. His separate statement to this effect has also been recorded.

Mr.Arvind Sharma, Advocate, in his statement has deposed that he has been duly authorized to represent respondent No.1-State Bank of India and also to compromise the matter and to make statement on its behalf and has instructions to say that as per onetime settlement nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner and he has instructions to withdraw the complainant so preferred by the respondent-Bank for compounding the case. He has further stated that he has deposed strictly in consonance with instructions imparted to him by the Chief Manager of the concerned Branch.

Consequently, complainant-respondent Bank is permitted to withdraw the complaint and matter is compounded and complaint arising out of dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is permitted 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.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has taken loan from the Bank for construction of house and due to financial crunch he could not repay the same and he has also been arrested and is undergoing sentence and, therefore, by taking a lenient view instead of 15% compounding fee, either may be exempted or lesser amount of compounding fee be imposed upon the petitioner, particularly keeping in view ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H. 2010 (5) SCC 663, as clarified in Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority Vs. Prateek Jain and another 2014 (10) SCC 690.

Considering submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, instead of 15% compounding fee, petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5000/ - before the H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Shimla, within four weeks from today, failing which judgment shall revive.

Trial Court is directed to ensure release of the petitioner forthwith.

Registry to transmit copy of this judgment to the H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Shimla and to the Trial Court.

Petition stands disposed of, in the aforesaid terms, so also pending application(s), if any.

Petitioner is permitted to produce a copy of this judgment, downloaded from the web-page of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, before the authorities concerned, and the said authorities shall not insist for production of a certified copy but if required, may verify it from Website of the High Court.