Himachal Pradesh High Court
CRMMO/95/2017 on 27 December 2017
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MMO No. 95 of 2017
Decided on: 27th December, 2017
__________________________________________________________________ Prem Singh
....Petitioner.
Versus
Dharam Singh.
…Respondent.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner:
Mr. D.S. Kainthla, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate.
_________________________________________________________________
Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge (oral).
The present petition is maintained by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing order dated 21.10.2016, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, in Cr. M.P. No. 196 of 2016, whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit the entire amount of compensation. The petitioner has further prayed that he be permitted to deposit 25% of the amount of compensation and he be not arrested on this count.
2. On 21.10.2016, the learned Appellate Court has passed the following order:
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
“Office report seen, it be registered. Heard. Time is extended to deposit fifty percent of the amount of compensation within one month and next fifty percent within a period of two months and to furnish bail bonds and surety within one month from today as directed by this Court vide order dated 17.09.2016.
The application stands disposed of. Be tagged with main appeal.”
3. As per the petitioner, the respondent herein filed a complaint against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, wherein the learned Trial Court, vide judgment dated 08.08.2016, sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of eight months and to pay compensation of `2,70,000/- (rupees two lac seventy thousand). The petitioner herein preferred an appeal against the judgment of the learned Trial Court. It is further contended that the learned Appellate Court vide its order dated 21.10.2016 extended the time to deposit the compensation amount. The petitioner belongs to IRDP/BPL family and is a poor person and to this effect he has placed on record his IRDP certificate.
4. Heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is very poor person, belongs to poorest strata and is not in a position to deposit 50% of the compensation amount. However, he will deposit 25% of the compensation amount within four weeks and rest 25% will be deposited by him within further six weeks. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the petitioner is just delaying the matter by misusing the process of law. He prays that the petition be dismissed.
5. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that to show indulgence for the poor person some more time be granted to deposit the compensation amount.
6. After hearing the rival contentions of the parties and going through the available record, this Court finds that initially the learned Appellate Court granted eight seeks time to deposit 50% amount of compensation, which the petitioner could not deposit and in spite of this extension in time was granted by the learned Appellate Court. The petitioner, after due adjudication of the case, by the learned Trial Court, has been held liable to pay compensation, so I find no infirmity with the order passed by the learned Trial Court, which is within the confines of law. Likewise, there is no infirmity in order dated 21.10.2016, passed by the learned Appellate Court.
7. In view of the above, the petition, which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner may be given liberty to approach the learned Appellate Court with 50% of the compensation amount, so that his appeal is heard on merits. The petitioner is granted liberty to approach the learned Appellate Court in accordance with law.
(Chander Bhusan Barowalia) 27th December, 2017 Judge (virender)