LAWS(HPH)-2016-10-191

NARINDER KUMAR KAPOOR Vs. TARA SINGH

Decided On October 20, 2016
Narinder Kumar Kapoor Appellant
V/S
TARA SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present revision petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the judgment dated 22.1.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 27-D/X/2012 whereby he upheld the judgment dated 30.3.2012/31.3.2012 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. in Criminal Case No. 49-III/2010 in a complaint filed by the complainant/respondent against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay compensation of '2,70,000/- to the complainant. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes

(2.) Today, the petitioner is present in the Court and has stated that a sum of '1,30,000/- has been deposited in the trial Court and the remaining amount of '1,40,000/- has been paid in cash today in the open Court to learned counsel for the respondent/complainant. It is represented by learned counsel for the respondent/complainant that he has received a sum of '1,40,000/- on behalf of the complainant. A sum of '1,30,000/- lying in deposit in the trial Court is ordered to be released in favour of the complainant/respondent on furnishing the bank account number in the trial Court. Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent stated that the complainant/respondent does not want to pursue the case any further against the petitioner.

(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.