IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No.341 of 2014 Date of Decision: 22.07.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Sunil Sood ……...Petitioner Versus Sangeeta Sood …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Jeevesh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arsh Chauhan, Advocate. _________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, lays challenge to judgment dated 10.10.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Camp at Rohru, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No.RBT-10-R/10 of 2014/2011, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.12.2010 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., in Criminal complaint No.04-3 of 2009, whereby learned Court below, while holding the petitioner-accused (hereinafter ‘accused’) guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘Act’) convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months 2 and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.60,000/- to the respondent- complainants (hereinafter ‘complainants’). 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record are that complainants filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act in the competent court of law, alleging therein that accused with a view to discharge his lawful liability issued cheque bearing No.151029 dated 20.11.2008 amounting to Rs.50,000/-, in favour of the complainant, however, the same was dishonoured with remarks “Insufficient funds”. Since accused failed to make the payment good within the time stipulated in the legal notice, complainants were compelled to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act before the competent Court of law. 3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 14.12.2010, held the accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as per the description given hereinabove. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Court below, accused preferred an appeal in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Camp at Rohru, H.P., which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 10.10.2014, as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, 3 accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for his acquittal after setting aside the judgments of conviction recorded by the courts below. 5. Today during proceedings of the case, learned counsel for the accused, on instructions of the accused, who is present in person, states before this Court that accused has agreed to pay the entire amount of compensation awarded by learned trial Court to the complainant. He states that on account of aforesaid amicable settlement arrived inter se parties, this Court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, may proceed to compound the offence and acquit the accused from the charges framed against him. 7. Pursuant to order passed by this Court, complainant has not come present, but her son Mr. Suraj Sood is present in person. He states that he has been duly instructed to make a statement on behalf of his mother i.e. complainant. He states that parties have entered into compromise, whereby both the parties have settled the dispute for a sum of Rs.4,20,000/- in Criminal Appeal No.517 of 2012 and the present petition i.e. Criminal Revision No.341 of 2014. He states that since in the instant proceedings, compensation amount is Rs.60,000/-, which shall be paid by the accused to his mother on or before 30.10.2026, he shall have no objection in compounding the offence and acquitting the accused from the charges framed against him under Section 138 of the Act. Afore statement of the son of the complainant is taken on record. 4 8. Accused has also come present before this Court and is represented by Mr. Jeevesh Sharma, Advocate. He states that he, of his own volition and without any external pressure, has entered into compromise with the complainant and read the statement made by the son of the complainant. He states that in case he failed to pay sum of Rs.60,000/- to the complainant on or before 30.10.2026, he shall render himself liable for penal consequences as well as contempt proceedings. 9. Since parties have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them, as has been taken note hereinabove, coupled with the fact that son of the complainant has no objection in compounding the offence, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the accused for compounding the offence, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act as well as in terms of guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu V. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663, wherein it has been 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. 10. Consequently, in view of the discussion made hereinabove as well as law taken into consideration, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.10.2014 and 14.12.2010, passed by the learned Courts below are quashed and set-aside and the accused is acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 138 of the Act. Interim order, if any, is vacated. 5 Bail bonds, if any, discharged. The petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any. 11. Since complainant was compelled to engage in unwarranted litigation with the accused for realization of her own amount, accused is directed to deposit Rs.5,000/- with the HP State Legal Services Authority as compounding fee and Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges payable to the complainant within a period of six weeks from today, failing which, he shall render himself liable for penal consequences as well as contempt of court. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge July 22, 2026 (sunil)