Himachal Pradesh High Court
CR.R/117/2013 of YASHPAL SONI Vs SANTOSH KUMAR on 30 December 2022
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 117 of 2013 a /w Cr.MP No. 4141 of 20222. Decided on : 30 th December, 2022. Yashpal Soni ...Petitioner. Versus Santosh Kumar & Anr. ....Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for
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
Criminal Revision No. 117 of 2013 a/w Cr.MP No. 4141 of 20222.
Decided on : 30th December, 2022.
Yashpal Soni
...Petitioner.
Versus
Santosh Kumar & Anr.
....Respondent.
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?[1]
For the Petitioner:Mr. Munish Dhatwalia, Advocate,with the petitioner.
For Respondent No.1:Mr. Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate,with respondent No.1.
For Respondent No.2:
Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, Addl.A.G.
Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral).
By way of Cr.MP No. 4141 of 2022, permission hasbeen sought to compound the offence under Section 138 ofthe Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Respondent No.1 herein prosecuted the petitionerfor offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable InstrumentsAct by filing a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
First Class, Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P. Petitioner wasconvicted vide judgment dated 31.05.2011 and wassentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six monthsand to pay fine to the tune of Rs.32,000/- and in default ofpayment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment forthree months. The appeal filed by the petitioner was alsodismissed. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court byway of instant revision petition.
3. During the pendency of the revision petition, theparties are stated to have entered into a settlement. Awritten agreement evidencing the terms of such settlementhas been placed on record as Annexure A-1 with Cr.MP No.4141 of 2022. As per the agreement, it has been settled thatpetitioner will pay a sum of Rs.57,000/- in totality torespondent No.1 in full and final settlement of all his claim. Ithas further been agreed that respondent No.1 shall beentitled to Rs.32,000/- deposited by the petitioner in theRegistry of this Court in terms of orders passed in the instantpetition. Remaining amount of Rs.15,000/- was agreed to be paid by petitioner to respondent No.1 on or before 25[th]December, 2022.
4. It is submitted in the Court today that all the termsof agreement Annexure A-1 have been fulfilled. Rs.15,000/-has been paid by petitioner to respondent No.1 on23.12.2022. Respondent No.1, who is present in Court hasacknowledged the receipt of such amount. The offence underSection 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act iscompoundable.
5. It is more than settled that the composition ofoffence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Actcan be allowed even after recording of conviction against theaccused.
6. Since, the parties have amicably settled andresolved all their disputes, there is no legal impediment ingrant of prayer made in the application.
7. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts andcircumstances of the case, the application is allowed and theoffence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Actfor which the petitioner was tried and convicted by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P.in complaint No. 138-I-2010, is allowed to be compounded. Inresult the judgment passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1[st]Class, Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P. in Complaint No. 138-I-2010, on 31.05.2011/07.06.2011 and affirmed by the learnedSessions Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 36 of2011 is allowed, are set aside. The petitioner is acquitted ofall the charges.
8. This order, however, shall be subject to thecondition that the petitioner shall deposit 10% of the chequeamount with the H.P. State Legal Services Authority withinfour weeks from today. In case of default of petitioner indepositing the amount with the H.P. State Legal ServicesAuthority within the time allowed as above, this order shallautomatically stands reviewed and the conviction andsentence of the petitioner shall revive.
9. In view of the settlement arrived at between theparties, the amount of Rs.32,000/- lying in deposit in theRegistry of this Court be released in favour of respondent No.1 on his furnishing the details of his bank account with theRegistry. The petition stands accordingly disposed of.
For compliance list on 24[th] March, 2023.
30[th] December, 2022. (jai)
(Satyen Vaidya)Judge