D.P. GOEL Vs. RAMESH CHAND SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this revision petition filed under Sec. 397, read with Sec. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer has been made for setting aside the judgment, dtd. 24/4/2017, passed by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. in Criminal Case No. 203/1 of 2011, vide which, the present petitioner stood convicted under the provisions of Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as also for setting aside the judgment, dtd. 30/10/2020, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. in Cr. Appeal No. 32-N/10 of 2017, vide which, learned Appellate Court affirmed the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court by dismissing the appeal.

(2.) Today, learned counsel for the parties inform the Court that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and in this background, the complainant/respondent No. 1 does not has any objection in case the offence is ordered to be compounded by this Court. The Court further stands informed that in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties, an amount of Rs.2,07,000.00 has been paid by the petitioner to the complainant. The petitioner has no objection in the release of Rs.60,000.00 deposited before the learned Trial Court in favour of the complainant/respondent No. 1 and further an amount of Rs.33,000.00 is being paid today itself by way of Bank Draft No. 444702, dtd. 21/8/2021 (Code No. 2794) respondent No. 1 through learned counsel. The Bank Draft of Rs.33,000.00 has been handed over to learned counsel for respondent No. 1 in the Court itself. It is ordered that on an application, which shall be filed by respondent No. 1/complainant before the learned Court below, the amount of Rs.60,000.00 deposited by the petitioner therein, be released in favour of the complainant/respondent No. 1 alongwith up-to-date interest, as may have accrued.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of said development, it will be in the interest of justice in case this Court exercises its power of compounding the offence in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 Supreme Court Cases 663. He further submits that as the petitioner has made good the amount due to the respondent, it will be in the interest of justice, in case in terms of para-25 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India (supra), the compounding fee of the cheque amount is modified taking into consideration the peculiar facts of the case and the financial condition of the petitioner. He assures the Court that in case the offence is compounded by this Court, then the compounding fee shall be paid by the petitioner within the time so granted by the Court.