Himachal Pradesh High Court
CR.R/105/2006 of KRISHAN THAKUR Vs HATINDER KUMAR on 30 December 2011
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,SHIMLA. Criminal Revision No.105 of 2006. Date of decision: 30.12.2011. _______________________________________________________ Shri Krishan Thakur S/O Shri Kirpa Ram, resident of Building near S.D.M. residence, V.P.O. Chopal, Tehsil Chopal, Distt. Shimla, H.P.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
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. Criminal Revision No.105 of 2006.
Date of decision: 30.12.2011.
_______________________________________________________
Shri Krishan Thakur S/O Shri Kirpa Ram, resident of Building near S.D.M. residence, V.P.O. Chopal, Tehsil Chopal, Distt. Shimla, H.P.
….. Petitioner.
Versus
Shri Hatinder Kumar S/O Shri Narinder Kumar, resident of Hakim Raj Building, Dhalli, Shimla-12.
…. Respondent.
Criminal Revision Petition Under 397 read with Section 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? No
For the Petitioner :
Mr. B.S. Kanwar, Advocate.
For the Respondent :
Mr. Ashok Sood, Advocate.
Kuldip Singh, J(Oral).
The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that petitioner is present in the Court and he has been duly identified by his learned counsel. The respondent is also present in the Court and he has also been identified by his counsel. The learned counsel for the parties, on instructions received from their respective parties have stated that the parties have settled the matter and they have prayed that the matter be allowed to be compounded.
2. The respondent had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short Act) against the _____________________
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes petitioner and petitioner was convicted and sentenced by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Shimla on 19.11.2004 in case No.62/3 of 2000. The conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Court has been upheld by learned Sessions Judge (F), Shimla on 19.8.2006 in Cr. Appeal No.30-S/10 of 2005/04. The parties through their respective counsel have stated in the Court that parties have settled the dispute. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that petitioner has deposited an amount of `8700/- being 15% of the cheque amount of `58,000/- for compounding the matter.
3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are permitted to compound the matter. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner recorded by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Shimla on 19.11.2004 in case No.62/3 of 2000 and upheld by learned Sessions Judge (F), Shimla on 19.8.2006 in Cr. Appeal No.30-S/10 of 2005/04 are set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the accusation. The compensation amount of `58,000/- deposited by the petitioner in the trial Court is ordered to be released in favour of respondent/complainant alongwith interest if any, on his filing application. The amount of `8700/-, deposited by the petitioner as 15% of the cheque amount be remitted in the H.P. High Court Legal Services Committee account in terms of Damodar S. Prabhu Versus Sayed Babalal H. 2010(5) SCC 663. The petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application, if any.
December 30, 2011.
(sks)
(Kuldip Singh), Judge.