SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(HP) 277

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
SATYEN VAIDYA, J.
Diwan Chand – Petitioner
Versus
Shamsher Singh – Respondent
Cr. MMO No. 503 of 2023
Decided On : 02-06-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mamta K. Bhatwan.
For the Respondent: Vinod Sharma.

Point of Law: Section 362 of Code bars Criminal Courts from altering or reviewing its judgment or final order except to correct clerical or arithmetical error.

Headnote:

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482, 147, 362 - Criminal complaint - Compromise - Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc. of funds in account - Application may kindly be allowed and sentence imposed in criminal complaint may kindly be set-aside and petitioner may kindly be acquitted in interest of justice and fair play - Cheque was issued by petitioner/accused to discharge his liability.

Findings of the Court:

Dispute inter-se parties was purely of private nature - Petitioner/accused owed some debt to respondent/complainant - Cheque was issued by petitioner/accused to discharge his liability - On cheque having remained unpaid, petitioner/accused had faced prosecution and consequent conviction for offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act - Conviction of petitioner/accused remained undisturbed in appeal as well as in revision filed before Court, still respondent/complainant came forward and showed his magnanimity by agreeing to compound offence on receipt of his dues - Prayer made in petition deserves to be accepted as on one hand it will serve interest of justice and on other will not in any manner adversely affect society at large - Judgment of conviction and sentence order passed are set-aside and petitioner/accused is acquitted of all charges.

Result: Petition allowed.

Judgement Key Points

यह मामला एक क्रिमिनल केस का है जिसमें आरोपी ने अपने ऊपर लगे आरोप को सुलह और समझौते के आधार पर वापस लेने का अनुरोध किया है। आरोपी का आरोप था कि उसने एक चेक जारी किया था जो कि बाउंस हो गया था, और इस आधार पर उस पर धारा 138 के तहत मुकदमा चलाया गया था। आरोपी को पहले ट्रायल कोर्ट ने दोषी ठहराया और एक साल की सजा और ₹1,00,000 का जुर्माना लगाया। इसके बाद उसकी अपील और पुनर्विचार याचिका भी खारिज हो गई।

हालांकि, आरोपी ने अपने और शिकायतकर्ता के बीच हुए समझौते का हवाला देते हुए, अदालत से अनुरोध किया कि वह इस मामले को समाप्त करे और आरोपी को बरी कर दे। अदालत ने पाया कि यह विवाद पूरी तरह से निजी स्वार्थ का मामला है और दोनों पक्षों ने आपस में समझौता कर लिया है। यदि दोनों पक्ष सहमत हैं और शिकायतकर्ता ने अपनी पूरी देनदारी चुका दी है, तो अपराध को संजोने का औचित्य नहीं रह जाता।

अतः, अदालत ने इस मामले में अपने अंतर्निहित अधिकार का प्रयोग करते हुए, आरोपी की दोषसिद्धि को रद्द कर दिया और उसे सभी आरोपों से बरी कर दिया। इस निर्णय का आधार यह है कि अपराध का विवाद मुख्य रूप से निजी स्वार्थ का है, और दोनों पक्षों के बीच समझौता हो चुका है, जिससे समाज में स्थिरता और न्याय सुनिश्चित होता है।

अंत में, अदालत ने यह भी माना कि ऐसे मामलों में, जहां अपराध की प्रकृति निजी है और दोनों पक्ष सहमत हैं, वहां मुकदमे को समाप्त करने और आरोपी को बरी करने का अधिकार है, ताकि न्याय और समाज की शांति बनी रहे।


JUDGMENT :

SATYEN VAIDYA, J.

1. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief:

    “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this application may kindly be allowed and the sentence imposed in the Criminal Complaint No. 180-3 of 2019/17, titled as Shamsher Singh vs. Diwan Chand, dated 15.10.2019 may kindly be set-aside and the petitioner may kindly be acquitted in the interest of justice and fair play.”

2. The petitioner was prosecuted by respondent for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘N.I. Act’) in Criminal Case No. RBT 180-3 of 2019/17 before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P.

3. Petitioner was convicted for the above noted offence by learned trial Court and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant/respondent. The appeal preferred by petitioner was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Shimla (Camp at Rohru), District Shimla, H.P. vide judgment dated 07.10.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 14-R/10 of 2020. Thereafter, petitioner approached this Court by way of Cr. Revision No. 369 of 2021, but again remained unsuccessful. His petition was dismissed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 15.5.2023.

4. Petitioner has now invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Code’) for allowing him to compound the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on the basis of a compromise arrived at between him and respondent/complainant on 17.5.2023. The deed of compromise has also been placed on record as Annexure P-4. It is submitted that after passing of judgment by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 369 of 2021, the matter stands compromised between the parties. The respondent/ complainant has received entire due amount from the petitioner/convict and in view of such compromise the respondent/complainant is no more interested in the petitioner/convict undergoing sentence imposed upon him.

5. On 29.5.2023, the parties were present before the Court. The statement of respondent/complainant was recorded on oath. The respondent had specifically stated that the matter had been amicably settled by petitioner with him. He verified the contents of compromise Annexure P-4 and also identified his signatures thereon. He further stated that in view of the compromise, he had no objection in case the conviction recorded against petitioner on his complaint was quashed and set-aside.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully.

7. The offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act has been made compoundable under Section 147 of the Act ibid. The question arises whether such composition can be allowed even after the accused stands convicted and sentenced and the judgment of conviction is upheld even by this Court in revision preferred by the accused?

8. Section 362 of the Code bars the Criminal Courts from altering or reviewing its judgment or final order except to correct clerical or arithmetical error. This provision however, has been made subject to other provisions contained in the Code or any other law for the time being in force. Section 482 of the Code, saves inherent powers in this Code to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

9. Thus, in appropriate cases, this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code can alter or review its judgment or final order in order to secure the ends of justice. Every civilized society and the legal/judicial system adopted by it longs for maintenance of peace and harmony between its subjects. Every step that furthers the above cause or seeks to maintain peace and harmony in the society can

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top