9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 312 - HC - Indian LawsExemption from Compounding fee or not - petitioner has offered to compromise the matter against payment of entire compensation amount, which was agreed upon - HELD THAT - The petitioner has prayed for exempting or imposing lesser amount of compounding fee instead of 15% of cheque amount. It is also submitted by him that considering the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in DAMODAR S. PRABHU VERSUS SAYED BABALAL H. 2010 (5) TMI 380 - SUPREME COURT , as clarified by the Apex Court in MADHYA PRADESH STATE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY VERSUS PRATEEK JAIN ANOTHER 2014 (10) TMI 528 - SUPREME COURT , wherein it has been held that Court may reduce compounding fee for given facts and circumstances of a particular case, present case is a fit case of exemption of compounding fee. It is an appropriate case to impose lesser compounding fee. Therefore, petitioner is directed to deposit compounding fee of ₹ 5,000/- instead of 15% of cheque amount, with the H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Shimla within six weeks from today - petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Appeal against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge 2. Compromise offer by the petitioner for payment of compensation 3. Shortfall in the compensation amount deposited by the petitioner 4. Payment of balance amount by the petitioner 5. Permission granted for withdrawal of complaint and compounding of the case 6. Exemption or reduction of compounding fee for the petitioner Analysis: 1. The judgment pertains to a revision petition challenging the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, affirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Judicial Magistrate in a criminal complaint case. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to one year of simple imprisonment along with a compensation amount of ?1,50,000 to be paid to the complainant. 2. During the proceedings, the respondent/complainant agreed to a compromise offered by the petitioner for the payment of the entire compensation amount. The respondent expressed willingness to withdraw the complaint upon receiving the compensation. However, discrepancies were noted in the amount initially deposited by the petitioner, leading to a delay in the settlement. 3. Subsequently, the petitioner, through their counsel, made a payment of the balance amount of compensation to the respondent, with a shortfall of ?1,000 remaining. The respondent confirmed the receipt of the entire compensation except for the remaining amount, which was promptly paid by the petitioner's counsel. 4. Following the full payment of the compensation amount, the respondent sought permission to withdraw the complaint, leading to the compounding of the case. Consequently, the judgments of conviction and sentence were quashed, and the petitioner was acquitted of the charges against them. 5. The petitioner's counsel requested for an exemption or reduction in the compounding fee, citing the Apex Court's rulings allowing for a reduction based on the specific circumstances of the case. Considering the financial condition of the petitioner, the court directed the petitioner to deposit a reduced compounding fee of ?5,000 instead of the standard 15% of the cheque amount. 6. In conclusion, the court ordered the release of the deposited amount along with interest to the respondent, emphasizing the need for timely payment of the reduced compounding fee. The judgment was disposed of with directions for the release of funds and provision for verifying the order from the High Court website. Additionally, a copy of the judgment was to be sent to the H.P. State Legal Services Authority for reference.
|
