1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No.574 of 2023 Date of Decision: 02.07.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Surjeet Singh ……...Petitioner Versus Jagjit Singh …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Bharat Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. S.C. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kamal Kumar, Advocate. _________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure, lays challenge to judgment dated 17.08.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Shimla, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No.45-S/10 of 20222, affirming the judgment of conviction dated 25.06.2022 and order of sentence dated 30.06.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., in criminal complaint No.261-3 of 2019, whereby learned Court below, while holding the 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 six months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/- to the respondent-complainant (for short ‘complainant’). 2 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 bearing No.000014 dated 06.02.2019 amounting to Rs.6,00,000/-, however, the same was dishonoured vide memo dated 08.02.2019 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 25.06.2022/ 30.06.2022, 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-I, Shimla, H.P., which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 17.08.2023, 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 in the instant proceedings, praying therein for his 3 acquittal after setting aside the judgments of conviction recorded by the courts below. 5. Before case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merit, parties have entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them. 6. Today during proceedings of the case, learned counsel for the accused, on instructions, states before this Court that accused has paid sum of Rs.6,25,000/- to the complainant as full and final settlement. 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 come present in person and has been duly identified by Mr. Kamal Kumar, Advocate. He states that he, of his own volition and without any external pressure, has entered into compromise with the accused. He states that since he has already received sum of Rs.6,25,000/- as full and final settlement, 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 complainant is taken on record. 8. Since it is not in dispute that parties have entered into compromise, whereby agreed amount has been paid to the complainant by the accused, there appears to be no impediment for this court in 4 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. 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 17.08.2023/ 25.06.2022 and 30.06.2022, 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. Since complainant was compelled to engage in unwarranted litigation with the accused for realization of his own amount, accused is directed to deposit Rs.10,000/- with the HP State Legal Service Authority as compounding fee 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 02, 2026 (sunil)