IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No.763 of 2024 Date of Decision: 24.2.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Hansa Devi ……...Petitioner Versus Diwakar Dutt …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Yogita Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Naveen K. Dass, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ms. Shikha Chauhan, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Instant criminal revision petition, lays challenge to judgment dated 28.8.2024, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No. RBT 79-S/10 of 2024/22, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.7.2022/1.8.2022, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class- 7, Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Complaint Case No.119-3 of 2018/17, 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 her to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month 2 and pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,30,000/- 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 her liability issued cheque amounting to Rs. 4,00,000/- 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 23.7.2022/1.8.2022, 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 28.8.2024, as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid 3 background, present petitioner-accused has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, seeking therein her acquittal after setting aside the judgments of conviction recorded by the courts below. 5. Vide order dated 21.11.2024, this Court suspended the substantive sentence imposed by the learned trial Court subject to applicant’s depositing 50% of the compensation amount before the trial court within four weeks. Only 20% of the compensation amount was deposited, but today during proceedings of the case, learned counsel representing the respondent-complainant on instructions states that he has received the entire amount of compensation and as such, has no objection in case offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner is ordered to be compounded while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that though she has no specific information with regard to compromise, if any, arrived inter-se parties but once respondent-complainant himself has stated that he has received the entire amount of compensation, this Court may proceed to pass appropriate orders. 7. Having taken note of the fact that entire amount of compensation stands received by the respondent-complainant, coupled with the fact that and he has no objection in compounding the offence, this 4 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. 8. Consequently, in view of the above, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and sentence dated 23.7.2022/1.8.2022 and 28.8.2024, passed by the courts below are quashed and set-aside and the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charge framed against her under Section 138 of the Act. Interim order, if any, is vacated. Bail bonds, if any, are discharged. Petitioner shall also be liable to pay 5% of the cheque amount as compounding fee with the Himachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, within a period of six weeks. It is made clear that in case, needful is not done within the time stipulated by this court, accused besides rendering himself liable for penal consequences would also invite contempt proceedings. The petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any. February 24, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge