IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No.842 of 2024 Date of Decision: 19.03.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Bhim Singh ……...Petitioner Versus Smt. Tikami Devi …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. K.R. Thakur, Advocate. _________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) [ Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 438 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, lays challenge to judgment dated 24.10.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Shimla, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No.9-S/10 of 2024, affirming the judgment of conviction dated 24.01.2024 and order of sentence dated 27.01.2024 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Shimla, H.P., in Criminal Complaint No.846 of 2022, whereby learned Court below, while holding the petitioner-accused (hereinafter ‘accused’) guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘Act’) convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant (hereinafter ‘complainant’). 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that complainant (for short ‘complainant’) filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act in the competent court of law, alleging therein that 2 accused with a view to discharge his liability, had issued cheque amounting to Rs.4,00,000/- in his favour, but fact remains that aforesaid cheque on its presentation was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the bank account of the accused. Since, despite having received demand notice 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, in 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 24.01.2024/ 27.01.2024, 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 learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Shimla, H.P., which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 24.10.2024 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 acquittal after setting-aside the judgments of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the learned 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. 3 6. On 11.03.2026, both the accused and complainant have come present before this Court. Complainant categorically stated before this Court on that day that in case entire amount of compensation is paid to her, she shall have no objection in compounding the offence as prayed for by the accused. 7. Learned counsel representing the complainant, on instructions, states that entire amount of compensation awarded by the learned Court below has been received, as such, complainant has no objection in case prayer made on behalf of the accused for compounding the offence is accepted and he is acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 138 of the Act. 8. Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions of the accused, who is present in Court, states that on account of amicable settlement, this Court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act may proceed to compound the offence and acquit the accused from the charge framed against him. He further states that on account of amicable settlement, Complaint No.1183 of 2022, pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.II, Mandi, filed by the accused against the complainant shall be withdrawn immediately. 9. 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, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the accused for compounding the 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 4 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. 10. 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 24.10.2024 and 24.01.2024/ 27.01.2024, 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, are discharged. The petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any. 11. Since complainant was compelled to engage in unwarranted litigation with the accused for realization of her own amount, accused is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- with the HP State Legal Service Authority as compounding fee within a period of six weeks, failing which, he shall render himself liable for penal consequences as well as contempt of Court. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge March 19,2026 (sunil)