KARAM SINGH Vs. BHUMI PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant criminal revision petitions have been maintained by the petitioner-accused-convict (hereinafter to Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment Yes be called as "the accused") against the judgments passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., in Criminal Appeals No. 12, 13, 14 and 15 of 2018, whereby the judgments and orders of conviction and sentence, dtd. 18/4/2018/23/4/2018, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manali, H.P., in Criminal Cases No. 96-1/2011/252-III/2011, 127-1/2011/253-III/2011, 180-1/2011/227-III/2011 and 246-1/2011/19-III/2012, were upheld.

(2.) Briefly stating facts giving rise to the present petitions are that in the months of November and December 2010, the petitioner-accused borrowed sum of Rs.1,80,000.00from the respondent-complainant (hereinafter to be called as "the complainant") for meeting out domestic and business expenses. The accused, in order to discharge his liability, issued four different cheques bearing No. 181451, 181452, 181453 and 181454, dtd. 1/1/2011, 1/2/2011, 1/3/2011 and 30/3/2011, amounting to Rs.45,000.00 (each) in favour of the complainant. When the said cheques were presented in the bank, the same were returned, being dishonored, vide memos, dtd. 19/1/2011, 7/2/2011, 17/3/2011 and 18/5/2011 with the remarks "Funds Insufficient". Though, the complainant issued legal notice to the accused, however, no payment was made by the accused.

(3.) Ms. Poonam Gehlot, Advocate, for the petitioner-accused has argued that as the amount in question has been paid to the complainant and the complainant has compromised the matter with the petitioner, vide compromise deed, placed on the file, the offence be compounded and the petitioner be acquitted of the offence he was convicted.