IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No.14 of 2023 Date of Decision: 3.3.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Netar Singh ……...Petitioner Versus Naresh Kumar and Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. L.S. Mehta, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ms. Anubhuti Sharma, 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 respondent No.2/State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Instant criminal revision petition, lays challenge to judgment dated 29.9.2022, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No. 29/2018, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.3.2018, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karsog, District Mandi, H.P., in Complaint No. 101/2025, 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 and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six 2 months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,20,000/- to the complainant. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that respondent-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/- but fact remains that aforesaid cheque on its presentation, was dishonoured. Since petitioner-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 material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 12.3.2018 held the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and 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 in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 29.9.2022, as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be 3 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, states that entire amount of compensation stands deposited before Registry of this Court as well as learned trial Court and petitioner accused has no objection in case same is ordered to be released in favour of the respondent. He states that since accused is ready and willing to pay the entire amount of compensation, this Court while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, may proceed to compound the offence. 6. While fairly acknowledging factum with regard to compromise, Ms. Anubhuti Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- complainant states that her client shall have no objection in compounding the offence subject to release of the amount lying deposited in the Registry of this Court as well as trial Court in his favour. Learned counsel further submits that since respondent-complainant was unnecessarily dragged into litigation for realization of his own money, this Court may also award some litigation cost. 7. Having taken note of the fact that entire amount of compensation stands paid or agreed to be paid to the respondent- 4 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 by the courts below. 8. Consequently, in view of the above, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and sentence dated 29.9.2022 and 12.3.2018, passed by the 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, discharged. Since respondent-complainant was unnecessarily compelled to institute the legal proceedings against the accused that too for realization of his own money, this court deems it fit to direct the accused to pay sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the respondent-Complainant as litigation cost, payable within six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Petitioner shall also be liable to deposit 5% of the cheque amount as compounding fee with the Himachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, within the afore period. It is made clear that in case, needful is not done by the petitioner within the 5 time stipulated by this Court, he besides rendering himself liable for penal consequences would also invite contempt proceedings. Registry of this Court as well as learned trial court are also directed to release the amount, if any, deposited by the accused in the case at hand, on filing appropriate application detailing therein saving bank account details of the complainant. The petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any. March 3, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge