IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No.404 of 2022 Date of Decision: 17.4.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Duni Chand ……...Petitioner Versus Mohd. Rafi and Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Lovneesh Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Neha Negi, Advocate, vice Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Instant criminal revision petition, lays challenge to judgment dated 19.4.2022, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Sundernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No. 176 of 2019, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20/21.1.2017, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-2, Sundernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Case No.32- 1/2012 of 2015, whereby the learned trial Court while holding the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short the “Act"), convicted 2 and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the respondent-complainant (herein after referred to as the “complainant” ). 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that complainant instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act, in the competent court of law, alleging therein that accused with a view to discharge his liability issued cheque amounting to Rs. 3,00,000/- in favour of the complainant, but fact remains that the aforesaid cheque on its presentation, was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. Since accused failed to make the payment good within the time stipulated in the legal notice, respondent/complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings before the competent Court of law under Section 138 of the Act. 3. Learned trial Court on the basis of pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 20/21.1.2017, held the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, sentenced him as per the description given herein above. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by the court below, accused preferred an appeal before learned First Appellate Court, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 19.4.2022, as a consequence of which, judgment of 3 conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, present petitioner-accused has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, seeking therein his acquittal after setting aside the judgments of conviction recorded by the courts below. 5. Mr. Loveneesh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner- accused states that parties have settled their dispute for a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/-. He submitted that accused has already paid Rs.2,50,000/- to the respondent/complainant, whereas sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- already stands deposited before the learned trial court below. He submitted that petitioner shall have no objection in case amount lying deposited before the learned trial Court is released in favour of the complainant and thereafter, this Court while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, may compound the offence and acquit the accused. 6. Respondent-complainant Mohd. Rafi, who is present in the Court and is duly represented by Ms. Neha Negi, Advocate vice Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Advocate, states on oath that he of his own volition and without there being any external pressure has entered into compromise with the petitioner for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-, out of which, he has already received Rs. 2,50,000/- from the petitioner and he shall have no objection in compounding the offence in case amount lying deposited before the learned trial Court is ordered to be released in his favour. 4 7. Ms. Neha Negi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- complainant, submitted that since respondent-complainant was unnecessarily dragged into litigation for realization of his own money, this Court may also award some litigation cost. 8. Having taken note of the fact that entire amount of compensation stands paid or agreed to be paid to the respondent- complainant and respondent has no objection in compounding the offence, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for compounding of 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. 9. Consequently, in view of the above, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and sentence dated 20/21.1.2017 and 19.4.2022, passed by the learned courts below are quashed and set-aside and the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 138 of the Act. Interim order, if any, is vacated. Bail bonds, if any, are discharged. Since respondent-complainant was unnecessarily compelled to institute legal proceedings against the 5 accused that too for realization of its own money, this court deems it fit to direct the accused to pay sum of Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost, to the respondent-complainant, payable within four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Apart from above, petitioner shall also be liable to pay 5,000/- as compounding fee with the Himachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, within aforesaid period. It is made clear that in case, needful, including depositing of demand draft, is not done within the time stipulated by this court, accused besides rendering himself liable for penal consequences would also invite contempt proceedings. Learned trial court below is directed to release Rs.1,50,000/- deposited by the petitioner- accused in favour of the respondent-complainant, by remitting the same in his saving bank account, detail whereof shall be furnished within one week. The petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any. April 17, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge