IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No.144 of 2024 Date of Decision: 30.4.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Sanjeev Kumar @ Sonu ……...Petitioner Versus Naresh Kumar …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Tamanna Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Bhupender Singh Ahuja, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Instant criminal revision petition, lays challenge to judgment dated 28.12.2023, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No. 36/10 of 2023, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.1.2023/22.6.2023, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Case No.92-3 of 2021, 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 months and pay sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- as compensation to the respondent-complainant and Rs.20,000/- as fine). 2 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 his liability issued cheque amounting to Rs. 2,80,000/- 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 11.1.2023/22.6.2023, 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 dated 28.12.2023, as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, present petitioner-accused has approached this 3 Court by way of instant proceedings, seeking therein his acquittal after setting aside the judgments of conviction recorded by the courts below. 5. Ms. Tamanna Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner- accused states that parties have settled their dispute amicably. She submits that since vide order dated 6.4.2026, this court has ordered for release of sum of Rs.3,50,000/- in favour of the respondent/complainant, this Court while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, may compound the offence and acquit the accused. She also submits that fine of Rs.20,000/- shall be deposited by the accused within two weeks. 6. Mr. Bhupender Singh Ahuja, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on instructions of his client, states that he has no objection in compounding the offence and acquitting the accused from the charges framed against him under Section 138 of the Act because this Court vide order dated 6.4.2026, has ordered for release of the amount, however some litigation cost may be awarded. 7. Having taken note of the fact that entire amount of compensation stands paid to the respondent-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 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. 8. Consequently, in view of the above, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and sentence dated 11.1.2023/22.6.2023 and 28.12.2023, passed by the learned 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, are discharged. Since respondent- complainant was unnecessarily compelled to institute legal proceedings against the accused for realization of his own money, this court deems it fit to direct the accused to pay sum of Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost, to the respondent-complainant, which has been received by Mr. Bhupender Singh Ahuja, Advocate in the Court today. Petitioner undertakes to deposit fine of Rs.20,000/- before the concerned Judicial Magistrate within two weeks, failing which he shall render himself liable for penal consequences as well as contempt of court. The petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any. April 30, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge