Case Law Details
Kantu Ram Vs Beer Singh (Himachal Pradesh High Court)
During proceedings of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the instructions of accused, who is present in court, states that as of today, Rs. 2,34,000/- stands paid to the complainant, whereas Rs. 66,000/- lying deposited in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theog can be ordered to be released in favour of the complainant. He states that since the amount awarded by learned trial Court has been agreed to be paid to the complainant, this court, while exercising power under S.147 of the Act may compound the offence and acquit the accused of the charges framed against him under S. 138 of the Act.
Learned counsel for the respondent, while fairly admitting the factum with regard to receipt of Rs.2,34,000/- from accused states on instructions of the complainant, who is also present in the court, that in case, sum of Rs. 66,000 lying deposited with learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Theog is ordered to be released in favour of the complainant, prayer made on behalf of accused for compounding of offence can be accepted.
Having taken note of the fact that the entire amount of compensation awarded by learned trial Court has been agreed to be paid to the complainant, this court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the accused in the petition for compounding of offence under S. 147 of the Act, and in terms of guidelines laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, can proceed to compound the offence even after recording of conviction by the courts below.
Consequently, in view of above, prayer made on behalf of the accused is allowed and offence committed by him under S.138 of the Act is ordered to be compounded.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
