NARINDER THAKUR Vs. KAPOOR SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Looking to the nature of order, I propose to pass, it is not at all necessary to delve into the facts in detail. Suffice it to state that the complainant/respondent No.1 instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'Act') against the petitioner on the allegations that a cheque of Rs.2, 00, 000/- handed over by the petitioner to the respondent in order to discharge his liability had been dishonoured. The complaint was decided in favour of the respondent No.1 by the learned trial Magistrate and the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay Rs.10, 000/- as fine. In default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to undergo additional simple imprisonment for 5 days. The petitioner was also ordered to pay a sum of Rs.3, 00, 000/- as compensation to the complainant/respondent No.1 as the cheque in question was issued in the year 2012 and in default of payment of compensation, he was sentenced to undergo additional simple imprisonment of 30 days.

(2.) Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Magistrate on 27.7.2017/31.7.2017, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 57-Cr.A/10 of 2017, however, the same came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 1.2018, constraining the petitioner to file the instant revision petition.

(3.) Today, both the parties are present in the Court. It is represented by the complainant/respondent No.1 that he has received the entire compensation amount. This statement is not disputed by the petitioner. It is represented by Ms. Devyani Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.1 that a sum of Rs.10, 000/- which has been deposited by the petitioner as a fine before the learned trial Magistrate may be paid as compensation to the complainant/respondent No.1. Since, the entire compensation amount has been received by the complainant/respondent No.1, therefore, the matter can be given quietus in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Nagpal versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2018) 3 SCC 249 and P.Ramadas versus State of Kerala and another, (2018) 3 SCC 287, wherein it is clearly held that waiver of imprisonment in lieu of payment of additional compensation is permissible, though under exceptional circumstances.