Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2022 DAILYLAW 1029 (HP)

Roop Lal v. Biri Singh and anr

CR.R/720/2022 · 2026-09-02

Bipin Chander Negi

body2022

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No.720 of 2022 Date of Decision : 02.09.2026 Roop Lal …… Petitioner Versus Biri Singh and another ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Ms. Anuja Mehta, Proxy Counsel, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Aafreen Kaushal, Proxy Counsel, for respondent No.1. Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.2-State. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) In the instant Revision Petition, an application under Section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as “the N.I. Act”), i.e., Cr.MP No.3163 of 2026, for compounding of offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, has been filed by the petitioner. From perusal of the order-sheets and record, it is evident that the petitioner has deposited 50% of the compensation amount before the trial Court and Rs.10,000/- before the Registry of this Court. No reply thereto is to be filed by the non-applicant/complainant, as he has received the balance compensation amount as is evident from the compromise appended with the application filed under Section 147 of the N.I. Act. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Briefs facts giving rise to the case at hand are that on a complaint filed by the present respondent against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, in Complaint No.76-III-15, the petitioner had been convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 90,000/- to the complainant. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.05.2022 & 31.05.2022 respectively, the present petitioner had preferred Criminal Appeal No.40 of 2022. The said appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 29.11.2022. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the present petitioner had preferred present Criminal Revision before this Court. 5. During pendency of the present Revision Petition, the petitioner had compromised the matter with the respondent as the latter admits deposit of 50% of the cheque amount before the trial Court and having received the balance compensation amount as per the compromise. 6. Consequently in view of aforesaid, this Court finds no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner through application (Cr.M.P. No. 3163 of 2026) for compounding of the offence and the same is allowed. The matter is ordered to be compounded inter se parties. Impugned judgments of conviction and order of sentence passed by both the learned Courts below are quashed 3 and set aside. Petitioner-accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 7 In terms of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663, the petitioner is required to pay compounding fee i.e. 15 % of the cheque amount as costs. However, taking into account the financial condition of the petitioner, which has been demonstrated in the application, the compounding fee, in the case at hand, is reduced to 5% of the cheque amount. The same be paid to the H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Kusumpati, Shimla-9, H.P., within a period of four weeks from today. 8. Report qua deposit of 5% of the cheque amount with HP State Legal Services Authority be sought from the concerned authority on or before 07.09.2026. In the meanwhile, petitioner is also free to place copy of receipt qua payment made to the HP State Legal Services Authority. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent is free to move an application for release of amount lying deposited before the trial Court along with interest accrued thereupon. Learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant would have no objection, if such an application is filed. 10. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Bipin Chander Negi) September 02, 2026 (KS) Judge