IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No.180 of 2023 Date of Decision: 02.03.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Neeraj ……...Petitioner Versus Devinder Singh Jalta & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Anita, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for respondent No.2-State. _________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, lays challenge to judgment dated 01.08.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge- II, Solan, District Solan, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No.25ASJ-II/10-2018 affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.05.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Court No.1, Solan, District Solan, H.P., in criminal case No. 530/3 of 2014, whereby court below, while holding petitioner-accused (in short ‘accused’) guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short ‘Act’) convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and six months and pay 2 compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondent No. 1/complainant (in short ‘complainant’). 2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that complainant 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 amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of the complainant, however, the same was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the bank account of the accused. Since accused failed to make the payment good within the time stipulated in the legal notice, complainant was 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 04.05.2018, held the accused guilty of having committed offence 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 Judicial Magistrate First Class Court No.1, Solan, District Solan, H.P., accused preferred an appeal in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Solan, District Solan, H.P., which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 01.08.2022, as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, accused has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, seeking therein his acquittal after 3 setting aside the judgments of conviction recorded by the learned Courts below. 5. Before case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merits, accused has amicably settled the matter with the complainant, whereby he has agreed to pay the entire amount of compensation in terms of judgment passed by the learned court below to the complainant. 6. After having entered into compromise, accused filed Cr.M.P No.668 of 2026 under Section 147 of the Act, praying therein to compound the offence. Ms. Anita, learned counsel for the complainant, while fairly acknowledging the factum with regard to compromise arrived inter se parties, on instructions of the complainant, states that in case amount lying deposited with the learned trial Court is ordered to be released in favour of the complainant, complainant shall have no objection in compounding the offence. 7. Mr. Rakesh Thakur, learned counsel for the accused, states that sum of Rs.50,000/- has already been paid to the complainant, which fact has been fairly acknowledged by Ms. Anita, learned counsel for the complainant and sum of Rs.50,000/- lying deposited with the learned trial Court can be ordered to be released in favour of the complainant. 8. Since parties have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them, as has been taken note hereinabove, coupled with the fact that complainant has no objection in compounding the offence, in the event of his being released the amount lying deposited with the learned trial Court, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the accused for compounding the offence, while exercising power under 4 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. 9. 9. 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 sentence dated 01.08.2022 and 04.05.2018, 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. Bail bonds, if any, discharged. The petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any. 10. Remaining compensation amount deposited by the accused with the learned trial Court is ordered to be released in favour of complainant by remitting the same in his bank account, detail whereof, shall be furnished within a period of one week. 11. Since complainant was compelled to engage in unwarranted litigation with the accused for realization of his own amount, accused is directed to deposit 5% of the cheque amount with the HP State Legal Service Authority as compounding fee, failing which, he shall render himself liable for penal consequences as well as contempt of court. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge March 02, 2026 (sunil)