9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disposed off. - Cr. Revision No. 432 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 28-3-2023 - The Hon ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja , Judge . For the petitioner: Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate . For the Respondent No. 2 / State: Mr. B.N. Sharma and Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, Additional Advocates General, with Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General . ORDER Sushil Kukreja, Judge. (oral) The instant petition has been filed by the petitioneraccused under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against judgment dated 16.06.2022, passed by learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 34-NL-10 of 2019, titled Jeet Ram vs. Himachal Gramin Bank, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner-accused Jeet Ram against the judgment of conviction dated 21.02.2019 and order of sentence dated 26.02.2019, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., in Criminal Complaint No. 381/3 of 2012, titled Himachal Pramin Bank vs. Jeet Ram, was dismissed, whereby the learned Trial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stated that the complainant-Bank has compromised the mater with the petitioner-accused and since there are no dues pending against him with respect to the loan account as the petitioner has repaid the entire amount under one time scheme (OTS), against which, he had issued the cheque in question, therefore, the Bank has issued No Objection Certificate (NOC), dated 27.02.2023, copy whereof is Annexure A-1/T. Now, the Bank has no objection in case judgment of conviction dated 21.02.2019 and order of sentence dated 26.02.2019, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., in Criminal Complaint No. 381/3 of 2012, titled Himachal Gramin Bank vs. Jeet Ram, and affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., are quashed and set aside. 5. Similarly, the petitioner-accused has stated that he has compromised the matter with respondent No. 1-Bank under one time scheme (OTS) against the loan amount raised by him and a sum of Rs.1,67,000/- (rupees one lac sixty seven thousand) has been repaid by him. He has further stated that qua the payment by him, respondent No. 1-Bank has issued No Objection Certificate ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of this provision would lead us to the inference that offences punishable under laws other than the Indian Penal Code also cannot be compounded. However, since Section 147 was inserted by way of an amendment to a special law, the same will override the effect of Section 320(9) of the Cr.P.C., especially keeping in mind that Section 147 carries a non obstante clause. 7. In K. Subramanian vs. R. Rajathi, (2010) 15 Supreme Court Cases 352, it has been held by the Hon ble Apex Court that in view of the provisions contained in Section 147 of the Act read with Section 320 Cr.P.C., compromise arrived at can be accepted even after recording of the judgment of conviction. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:- 6. Thereafter a compromise was entered into and the petitioner claims that he has paid Rs. 4,52,289 to the respondent. In support of this claim, the petitioner has produced an affidavit sworn by him on 1.12.2008. The petitioner has also produced an affidavit sworn by P. Kaliappan, Power of attorney holder of R. Rajathi on 1.12.2008 mentioning that he has received a sum of Rs.4,52,289 due under the dishonoured cheques in full discharge of the value o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , stand discharged. 11. Undisputedly, the cheque amount is of Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five lacs), however, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a poor person and the imposition of compounding fee may be reduced. 12. In case K. Subramanian vs. R. Rajathi (supra) the Hon ble Apex Court had issued the guidelines with respect to the imposition of compounding fee for the offence by the parties, which reads as under: THE GUIDELINES (i) In the circumstances, it is proposed as follows: (a) That directions can be given that the writ of summons be suitably modified making it clear to the accused that he could make an application for compounding of the offences at the first or second hearing of the case and that if such an application is made, compounding may be allowed by the Court without imposing any costs on the accused. (b) If the accused does not make an application for compounding as aforesaid, then if an application for compounding is made before the Magistrate at a subsequent stage, compounding can be allowed subject to the condition that the accused will be required to pay 10% of the cheque amount to be deposited as a con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
