IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No.354 of 2024 Date of Decision: 20.05.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Sh. Jagdish Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd. and Another …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Paras Ram, Advocate, vice Mr. B.R. Kashyap, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Sandeep Mahajan, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for State. __________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Instant criminal revision petition filed under 397(1) read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., lays challenge to judgment dated 09.05.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.87-S/10 of 2022, titled Sh. Jagdish Kumar Vs. LIC Housing Finance Ltd., affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.07.2022/15.11.2022, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, whereby the learned trial Court while holding the petitioner-accused (hereinafter, ‘accused’) guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section -2- 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 compensation to the tune of ₹1,90,000/- to the complainant. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that respondent-complainant (hereinafter, ‘complainant’) instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act, in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, alleging therein that accused with a view to discharge his liability issued Cheque for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/-, 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, 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 04.07.2022/15.11.2022, 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 hereinabove. 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-I, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, -3- which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 09.05.2024, as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, 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. Before case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merits, parties have entered into compromise, whereby complainant has agreed to settle the dispute with the petitioner/accused. Counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions from the petitioner, states that entire amount lying deposited with the trial Court has been agreed to be released in favour of complainant and besides above, he has already settled the loan account with the complainant. He states that since petitioner/accused has agreed to settle the loan account, as per compromise, detailed hereinabove, this Court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act may proceed to compound the offence. 6. Mr. Sandeep Mahajan, Advocate, while putting in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1/complainant, states that he has instructions to depose on behalf of complainant. He states that as per compromise, petitioner/accused has settled the loan account with the complainant and and in case, remaining amount lying deposited with the learned trial Court -4- is ordered to be released in favour of complainant, it shall have no objection in case the judgments of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Courts below are quashed and set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge framed against him. His statement is taken on record. 7. His statement is taken on record. 7. Since parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them, as has been taken note hereinabove, coupled with the fact that respondent/complainant has no objection in compounding the offence, in the event of it being released the amount lying deposited with the learned trial Court, 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 09.05.2024 and 04.07.2022/15.11.2022, 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 -5- vacated. Bail bonds, if any, are discharged. Entire amount lying deposited with the learned trial Court is ordered to be released in favour of the respondent-complainant by remitting the same in its bank account, detail whereof shall be furnished by its counsel within one week. 9. Since respondent No.1/complainant was compelled to engage in unwarranted litigation with the petitioner/accused for realization of its own money, petitioner-accused is directed to deposit sum of Rs.5000/- with the H.P. State Legal Service Authority as compounding fee, within a period of eight weeks, failing which petitioner/accused shall render himself for penal consequences as well as Contempt of Court. The present petition is disposed in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Sandeep Sharma), May 20, 2026 Judge (Rajeev Raturi)