IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. R. No. 143 of 2018

Date of decision: 18.03.2019

Dinesh Kumar ..…..Petitioner

Versus

Dinesh Kumar ……Respondent

Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Tek Chand, Advocate.

Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral).

The parties are present in person and duly identified as such by their respective counsel.

2. Learned counsel for the parties jointly represent that the entire compensation amount stands paid to the respondent/complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the case be compounded in view of the very recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhangu Trading Co. and another versus Surjit Singh (dead) through LRs, Criminal Appeal Nos. 808 and 809 of 2018 decided on 02.07.2018 and in terms of the subsequent judgment in N.P.

<span id="page-0-0"></span>¹Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes

Murugesan versus C. Krishnamurthy, Criminal Appeal No.818 of 2018, decided on 04.07.2018.

3. It would be noticed that in the judgments referred to above, on the payment of the outstanding amount, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had compounded the cases by setting aside the convictions.

4. More closer to the facts of the instant case, is again a very recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A. Natarajan and another versus T. R. Rajendran, Criminal Appeal No. 163 of 2019, decided on 28.01.2019. In this case, the appellant-accused had been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and was imposed a fine of Rs.2,05,000/-. When the matter reached before the Hon'ble Supreme Court parties settled the matter by arriving at a Memorandum of Understanding stating therein that they have amicably settled the matter. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after taking into consideration the compromise deed entered into between the parties, set aside the conviction of the appellant therein in terms of Section 320(8) Cr.P.C. and the appellant was accordingly acquitted of all the charges.

5. Thus, taking into consideration all the attending facts and circumstances as also the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhangu Trading Co., N.P. Murugesan and A.

Natarajan cases (supra), I am of the view that for doing complete justice the whole litigation should be given a quietus.

6. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner is set aside. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

(sanjiv) Judge.

18th March, 2019. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan),