2021 (12) TMI 1342 - HC - Indian Laws

Court acquits petitioner, quashes conviction, and orders payment for unnecessary litigation.

GEETA DEVI Versus SURINDER SINGH SON OF LATE SH. BIR SINGH, THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ADVOCATE GENERAL.

GEETA DEVI Versus SURINDER SINGH SON OF LATE SH. BIR SINGH, THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ADVOCATE GENERAL. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Recall of judgment dated 12.9.2019.2. Power to review/recall its own order/judgment.3. Compounding of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.4. Maintainability of the review application post dismissal of Special Leave Petition (SLP) by the Supreme Court.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Recall of Judgment Dated 12.9.2019:The petitioner sought to recall the judgment dated 12.9.2019 passed by the High Court in Criminal Revision No.79 of 2019, which upheld the conviction and sentence dated 11.1.2018/26.2.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner argued that both parties had resolved their dispute amicably, and thus, the court should exercise its power under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to compound the offence and acquit the petitioner.2. Power to Review/Recall its Own Order/Judgment:The court examined whether it had the power to review or recall its own order/judgment in Criminal Revision No.79 of 2019. The petitioner’s counsel cited a previous judgment (Gulab Singh vs. Vidya Sagar Sharma) where the court had exercised its power to recall its judgment in light of Section 147, which permits the compounding of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court found that the issue had been duly adjudicated in the Gulab Singh case and other precedents such as Naresh Kumar Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan and K. Subramanian vs. R. Rajathi, which supported the view that the court could recall its judgment to facilitate the compounding of the offence.3. Compounding of the Offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act allows for the compounding of offences under Section 138, notwithstanding the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court noted that the compounding of the offence could be done even after the conviction has been recorded, as supported by the Supreme Court's judgments in Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H. and K. Subramanian vs. R. Rajathi. The court determined that since the petitioner had agreed to pay the entire compensation amount and the complainant had no objection to the compounding, the offence could be compounded, and the petitioner could be acquitted.4. Maintainability of the Review Application Post Dismissal of SLP:The court addressed the maintainability of the review application filed after the dismissal of the SLP by the Supreme Court. The petitioner argued that the dismissal of the SLP in limine (without a detailed order) did not result in the merger of the High Court's order with that of the Supreme Court. The court referred to the judgments in Kunhayammed vs. State of Kerala and Kanoria Industries Limited vs. Union of India, which clarified that the dismissal of an SLP without a detailed order does not preclude the High Court from entertaining a review petition. The court concluded that the review application was maintainable and could proceed to compound the offence.Conclusion:The High Court allowed the review application, compounded the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, quashed the judgment of conviction and sentence, and acquitted the petitioner. The court also directed the petitioner to pay an additional amount of Rs. 15,000 to the complainant for the unnecessary litigation. The amount deposited with the trial court was ordered to be released to the complainant upon a formal application.