Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 7888 (HP)

Diwan Singh v. Murki Lal

CR.R/205/2024 · 2025-07-28

Virender Singh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:HHC:24715 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 205 of 2024 Decided on : 28.7.2025 Diwan Singh …Petitioner Versus Murki Lal …Respondent ___________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________ For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Ranta, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Pallavi Sharma, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner Diwan Singh has filed the present petition, against the judgment dated 5.1.2024, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohru, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Court’), in Criminal Appeal No. 138-R/10 of 2023, titled as, ‘Diwan Singh versus Murki Lal’. 2 2025:HHC:24715 2. By way of judgment dated 5.1.2024, learned Appellate Court has dismissed the aforesaid appeal. 3. The said appeal was preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 22.8.2023, passed by the Court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in Crl. Case No. 839-3 of 2019, titled as, ‘Murki Lal versus Diwan Singh’. 4. By way of judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as referred to above, the learned trial Court has convicted the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’) for the commission of offence, punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the N.I. Act’) and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment, for a period of six months and to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- to the complainant. 5. During the pendency of the revision petition, before this Court, as per the stand taken by the 3 2025:HHC:24715 parties, the matter has been compromised between the parties. This fact has been demonstrated from Cr.M.P. No. 3093 of 2025, which has been moved by learned counsel for the petitioner-accused, before this Court, in which, he has prayed that permission to compound the offence may kindly be accorded. 6. The petitioner-accused has appeared before this Court today and stated on oath that the matter has been settled with the respondent, with regard to cheque No. 199271 dated 15.7.2019 and now, nothing is due against him. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent, under instructions, has made statement without oath, acknowledging the factual position, as asserted by the petitioner-accused, in her statement. Lastly, she has stated that the respondent has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed. 8. Keeping in view the fact that the parties to the lis have compromised the matter, Cr.M.P. No. 3093 of 4 2025:HHC:24715 2025 is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to compound the offence. 9. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, referred to above, passed by the learned trial Court, and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court, and accused is acquitted from the offence, punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, subject to payment of 15% of the cheque amount, as compounding fee. 50% of the compounding fee shall be deposited by the petitioner/accused with the Member Secretary, H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Shimla, and remaining 50% of the amount shall be deposited by him with the H.P. High Court Staff Welfare Organization, Shimla, within twelve weeks, from today. 10. Since, petitioner-accused is in judicial custody, as such, he is ordered to be released, if not required in any other case. 5 2025:HHC:24715 11. It is further clarified that in case of failure to deposit the compounding fee, within the prescribed period, the revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed and judgment of conviction and order of sentence, shall revive automatically, and the petitioner shall surrender before the learned trial Court to serve out the substantive sentence, imposed by the learned trial Court. 12. The bail bonds furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. 13. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. (Virender Singh) Judge July 28, 2025 (Kalpana) Digitally signed by VIKRANT CHANDEL Date: 2025.07.29 13:57:46 IST