IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 132 of 2018 Date of Decision 2 3 ^rd December, 2019 ________________________________________________________

Rajesh Sharma ….Petitioner Versus Vijay Singh …...Respondent ________________________________________________________

Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

Whether approved for reporting?1 ______________________________________________________________

For the Petitioner: Mr. Arun Sehgal and Mr.Narender Thakur, Advocates.

For the Respondent: Mr.Baldev Singh Negi, Advocate.

g_____________________________________________________________

Vivek Singh Thakur, J.(oral)

H Present revision petition has been filed assailing judgment dated 20.3.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla H.P., in Cr. Appeal No. 11- R/10 of 2017, whereby judgment/order dated 23.12.2016/24.12.2016, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, in criminal case No. 255-3 of 2015 convicting and sentencing the petitioner/accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

of six months and to pay compensation of Rs.1,40,000/- .to the complainant has been afÏrmed.

2. Learned counsel for respondent, under instructions, has stated, in his statement, that he is duly authorized and competent to make statement on behalf of the respondent as instructed by him and according to instructions imparted to him, petitioner Rajesh Sharma had t o pay an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- in total to respondent Vijay Singh, but, he has been directed to make statement that matter has been amicably settled and compromised owith applicant/petitioner Rajesh Sharma and according to that compromise, amount deposited by petitioner in the Courts i.e. Rs.56,000/- in the trial Court and Rs.45,000/- in thhis Court is to be released in favour of Vijay Singh by remitting the same in his bank account, particulars whereof shall be furnished in the trial Court and Registry of this Court, whereas Hremaining amount of Rs.39,000/- has been waived off by respondent and he shall not claim that amount in future and in turn, respondent Vijay Singh has agreed to withdraw the complaint for compounding the case and petition be disposed of accordingly with direction to release Rs.1,01,000/- in favour of respondent Vijay Singh. He has further stated that he has made the statement strictly in accordance with instructions imparted to him by respondent.

3 Consequently, respondent/complainant is perm.itted to withdraw the complaint and matter is compounded and complaint arising out of dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act is treated 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 agains t him.

4 Learned counsel for the petitioner has also prayed for imposing the lesser amount of compounding fee instead of 15% of cheque amoount. 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 clari by the Apex Court in Madhya Pradesh Legal Services Authority vs. Prateek Jain and another (2014)10 SCC 690 wherein it has been held that Court may reduce compounding Hfee for given facts and circumstances of a particular case, present case is a fit case of exemption of compounding fee.

5. Considering facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that it is an appropriate case to impose lesser compounding fee. Therefore, petitioner is directed to deposit compounding fee of Rs.1,000/- 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, peti.tioner shall place copy of receipt of deposit on record of this petition. In case of default in depositing comp