IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA ON THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR CRIMINAL REVISION No. 250 OF 2020 BETWEEN:-

INDERJEET SEDHA S/O JASWANT RAJ SEDHA R/O WARD NO. 1 NEAR DURGA MANDIR, AMLOH, DISTRICT FATHEGARH PUNJAB. ....PETITIONER (BY SH. DHEERAJ K. VASHISHT, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. BIRENDRA BAHADUR SINGH, S/O GANGA SAGAR R/O H. NO.

E-12 STAFF COLONY 121, INDUSTR IAL AREA, DEEPAK SPINNER LTD. BADDI DISTRICT SOLAN, H.P.

2. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH. ….RESPONDENTS (BY SH.ANUJ GUPTA, ADVOCATE, FOR RESPODNENT NO. 1).

(BY SH.RAJU RAM RAHI, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL, FOR RESPODNENT NO. 2).

Whether approved for reporting?

This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Present Revision Petition has been filed assailing judgment, dated 7.10.2020, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No. 4-NL/10 of 2020, whereby judgment/order dated 6.12.2019, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, st

1 Class, Court No. 2, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. in Cr. Complaint No. 98/3 of 2018, convicting and sentencing the petitioner-accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay compensation of `2,20,0.00/- to the complainant, has been affirmed.

2. Mr.Dheeraj K. Vashisht, learned counseHl for petitioner, under instructions, in his statement recorded today in the Court, has stated that he is authorized and competent to make statement on behalf of petitioner that petitioner intends to compromise the matter and, therefore, petitioner has no objection for release of entire amount of compensation i.e. `1,76,000/-u deposited by him in the Registry of this Court and `44,000/- depo osited in the trial Court during pendency of appeal before appellate Court. He has further stated that he has also instructions t o communicate that due to poor financial condition, petitioner is not in a position to pay compounding fee and, therefore, prayer for exemption of payment of compounding fee has been made.

HAccording to him, he has deposed in consonance with the instructions imparted to him for compounding the case.

3. Mr.Anuj Gupta, Advocate, learned counsel representing respondent No. 1/ complainant, in his statement has stated that he is authorized and competent to make statement on behalf of respondent No. 1 and he has instructions to communicate that respondent No. 1 is ready to withdraw the complaint for release of entire amount in his favour and prayer for awarding some additional amount for compounding the case has also been made. Lastly, he has deposed that his deposition in Court is strictly in consonance with instructions imparted to him by respondent No. 1/complainant.

4. So far as prayer for awarding additional amount made on behalf of respondent No. 1/complaint is concerned, considerin.g the entire facts and circumstances of the case and time taken for adjudication of present case in comparison to other oldeHr cases, I do not consider it a fit case to award additional amount of compensation other than the amount of compensation awarded by the trial Court.

5. Consequently, respondent No. 1/complainant is permitted to withdraw the complaint and matter is compounded and complaint arising out of dishonor of cheque, uunder Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is treateod to be withdrawn and judgments of conviction and sentence passeCd by the Courts below are quashed and set aside.

Petitioner-accused is acquitted of the accusation framed against him.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for exemption of compounding fee on the ground that due to poor financial condition, Hpetitioner could not pay the amount well in time and now he is not in a position to pay the compounding fee. It is also submitted by him 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 Court i