IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA ON THE 5^th DAY OF APRIL 2022 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR CRIMINAL REVISION No. 198 OF 2021 BETWEEN:-

BHIM SEN SON OF SH. KADHU RAM, R/O VILLAGE AND P.O. JAGATSUKH, TEHSIL MANALI, DISTT. KULLU, H.P.AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.

PETITIONER (BY SH.SAHILMALHOTRA, ADVOCATE)

AND LOBZANG CHHERING SON OF SH.

CHHOJEE BODH, R/O VILLAGE SHAMINALA, P.O. PRINI, TEHSIL MANALI, DISTT. KULLU, H.P.

RESPONDENT.

(BY SH. MAAN SINGH, ADVOCATE)

Whether approved for Reporting?

This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court passed the following:

ORDER

Present Revision Petition has been filed assailing judgment, dated 7.8.2021 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, Distt. Kullu, H.P. in Criminal Appeal No.07 (23) of 2020, titled as Bhim Sen vs. Lobzang Bodh whereby judgment/order dated 18.02.2020/22.02.2020, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Manali, District Kullu, H.P. in Cr. Case No. 478 of 2016, titled as Lobzang Bodh vs. Bhim Sen, convicting and sentencing the petitioner- accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act to undergo simple imprisonment for four months and to pay compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- to the complainant, has been affirmed.

2. During pendency of present petition, matter has been settled amicably between parties. Petitioner BhimH Sen is present in person and has been identified by his counsel. Statements of petitioner and Mr. Maan Singh, learned counsel for tfhe respondent have been recorded separately and placed on the file.

3. In his statement, the petitioner has stated that the matter has been amicably settled with the respondent and in this regard compromise deed has also been reduced into writing and the same has been placed on record. He has further stated that as per compromise, amount deposited by him in the trial Court is to be released in favour of respondent and remaining payment has been made by him and respondent has acknowledged full and final payment of compensation in terms of compromise and, in turn, respondent has agreed to withdraw ithe complaint for compounding the case. He has further stated that he is a poor person and because of poor financial condition he could not repay the compensation amount to the respondent. Therefore, he has prayed for exempting the compounding fee. He has further stated that he has deposed in this Court out of his free will and consent and without any threat or coercion of any kind.

4. In his statement, learned counsel for the respondent, under instructions, has endorsed the statement of the petitioner to be true and correct, and has stated that the respondent be permitted to withdraw the complaint for compromising the case, and that the amount deposited by the petitioner in the trial Court be ordered to be released in favour of the respondent.

5. Consequently, in view of the statemeHnt of petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and the compromise arrived at between the parties, matter is compounded anfd complaint arising out of dishonor of cheque, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is permitted to be withdrawn and the accused- petitioner is acquitted of the accusation framed against him.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that considering the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H. 2010 (5) SCC 663 as clarified by the Apex C ourt in Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority Vs. Prateek Jain and another 2014 (10) SCC 690, a lenient view be taken and the petitioner be exempted from payment of compounding fee. 7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances and ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in aforesaid cases, instead of 15% of the cheque amount, petitioner/accused is directed to deposit Rs.1,000/- as compounding fee with the H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Shimla within four weeks from today.

8. After depositing compounding fee/cost, petitioner shall place a copy of receipt of deposit of compou