The main legal point established is the court's discretion in allowing the withdrawal of the complaint, compounding the matter, and imposing a reduced compounding fee based on the petitioner's financial circumstances.

JUDGMENT

Vivek Singh Thakur, J. (Oral) - Present revision petition has been filed assailing judgment passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, District Sirmaur H.P. in Cr. Appeal No. 20-Cr.A T/10 of 2016, dated 8.9.2017, affirming judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur at Nahan, District Sirmaur, dated 23.3.2016 in complaint No. 1/3 of 2014 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act convicting and sentencing the petitioner/accused to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay compensation of Rs. 4,30,000/-.

2. Petitioner and respondent No. 1 are present in Court and have stated that the matter has been amicably settled between them and as per compromise, the amount deposited by the accused/petitioner in the trial Court amounting to Rs. 43,000/- and the amount deposited in the Registry of this Court is to be released in favour of respondent No.1/complainant and rest of the amount has already been paid by the accused/petitioner to complainant. In turn, respondent/complainant has prayed for permission to withdraw the complaint for compounding the matter as compromised. Separate statements of both of them have been recorded.

3. Consequently, respondent/complainant is permitted to withdraw the complaint and matter is compounded and complaint arising out of dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act is permitted to be withdrawn and judgments of conviction and sentence passed by learned Courts below are quashed and set aside.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.

4. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that considering the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Damodar S.Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663 and Madhya Pradesh Legal Services Authority vs. Prateek Jain and another (2014) 10 SCC 690 Court may reduce compounding fee for given facts and circumstances of a particular case and present case is a fit case of exemption of compounding fee because the petitioner is a low paid driver and he has managed to pay the amount of compensation/cheque amount to respondent No. 1 with great difficulty.

5. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, I feel that it is an appropriate case to impose the lesser compounding fee. Hence keeping in view the over all facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner is directed to deposit token compounding fee Rs. 2000/- instead of 15% of cheque amount with the H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Shimla within four weeks from today.

6. After depositing compounding fee/cost, petitioner shall place copy of receipt of deposit on record of this petition. In case of default in depositing compounding fee/cost with H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Shimla within stipulated period the judgments of conviction and sentence shall automatically revive.

7. The trial Court is also directed to release the amount deposited by petitioner/accused Tanuj Sharma in criminal complaint No. 1/3 of 2014 titled Meenakshi Gupta vs. Tanuj Sharma under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, in favour of respondent/complainant Meenakshi Gupta by remitting the same in her bank account on furnishing details thereof by respondent No. 1 herself or through her counsel.

8. Registry is also directed to release the amount of Rs. 2 lacs deposited by the petitioner along with upto date interest to the complainant/respondent Minakshi by remitting the same in her Bank Account immediately on furnishing the particulars thereof through herself or through her counsel.

9. Petition stands disposed of, in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy of this judgment be also sent to H.P. State Lagal Services Authority, Shimla.