DINA NATH Vs. CHET RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present revision petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the judgment dated 7.6.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, H.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 78-S/10 of 2011 whereby he affirmed the judgment dated 15.6.2011/20.6.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Theog, District Shimla, in Complaint No. 5-3 of 2010, in a complaint filed by the complainant/respondent No.1 against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') wherein the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine to the tune of Rs. 1,500/- and in case of default of payment of fine, the convict shall further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. In addition to this, the convict shall pay a compensation amounting to Rs. 60,000/- to the complainant/respondent No.1.

(2.) Today, the petitioner is present and has been identified as such by his counsel Sh. I.S. Chandel, Advocate. The respondent No.1/complainant, though is not present, but is duly represented by Sh. N.S. Chandel, Advocate. It is represented by learned counsel for the petitioner that he is ready to amicably settle the matter by paying the total outstanding amount to the complainant/respondent No.1. The complainant/respondent No.1 is not averse to this proposal. The petitioner has paid balance amount of Rs. 30,000/- in cash today in the court, which is duly accepted on behalf of respondent No.1/complainant by his counsel. It is represented by learned counsel for respondent No.1/complainant that in view of the total outstanding amount having been received by the respondent No.1/complainant, he does not want to pursue the case any further. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a sum of Rs. 30,000/- has been deposited before the trial Court. The complainant/respondent No.1 is held entitled to the compensation amount deposited by the petitioner before the trial Court and the same shall be released to him as per procedure.

(3.) From the records of the case, I find that this is not a case wherein the offence for which the petitioner has been charged can 'stricto sensu' be termed to be an offence against the State. Therefore, this is a case where the continuation of criminal case against the petitioner would put the petitioner to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not setting aside the impugned judgments of conviction and sentence.