DINA NATH Vs. SHANKAR DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Dina Nath, a convict under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, has come up, in this petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashing of the judgment(s) passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lahaul and Spiti at Kullu [hereinafter referred to as 'Learned Trial Court'] dtd. 2/4/2022/12/4/2022 [Annexure P-1], Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? in Complaint No. 211-1 of 2015, titled as Shankar Dass versus Dina Nath, which was affirmed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu [H.P.] [hereinafter referred to as 'Learned Appellate Court'], in Criminal Appeal No.14 of 2022, titled as Dina Nath versus Shankar Dass, on 8/8/2022 [Annexure P-2].

(2.) Consequent upon the conviction and sentence imposed by the Learned Trial Court, which was affirmed by the Learned Appellate Court, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused submits that during the pendency of instant proceedings, the petitioner-accused [Dina Nath], has remitted the entire liability of Rs.2,80,000.00 [Rupees Two Lakh Eighty Thousand] to the respondent-complainant [Shankar Dass], which is borne out from the receipt dtd. 9/3/2024 [Annexure P-3] and is also corroborated from the statement made by the respondent [Shankar Dass] today in the Court. In this background, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused and the Learned counsel for the Respondent Complainant, jointly submit that once the petitioner has discharged/remitted /liquidated his entire liability therefore, the offence may be compounded and the impugned judgments of conviction and sentence passed by the Learned Trial Court, which stood affirmed by the Learned Appellate Court may kindly be set-aside and the petitioner-accused may kindly be acquitted, so far it relates to accusation /offence, originating from the cheque in question, in the instant case.

(3.) Heard Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mr J.K. Sharma, Learned Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.2.