IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No.8 of 2024 Date of Decision: 27.05.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Dharam Pal ……...Petitioner Versus Bhup Singh …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners: Mr. Hitender Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate. _________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C, lays challenge to judgment dated 01.12.2023 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No.49 of 2022, affirming the judgment of conviction 01.10.2022 and order of sentence dated 17.10.2022 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., in Criminal Complaint No.489 of 2018, whereby learned Court below, while holding 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.2,30,000/- to the respondent-complainant (hereinafter ‘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 two cheques i.e. cheque bearing No. 457723 dated 25.02.2018 amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- and cheque No.457724 dated 10.03.2018 amounting to Rs.80,000/-, respectively, in favour of complainant, however, the same was dishonoured with remarks “Insufficient Funds”. 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 01.10.2022/ 17.10.2022, 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 learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 01.12.2023, 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 acquittal after setting aside the judgments of conviction recorded by the courts below. 3 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, states that accused is ready and willing to make payment of entire compensation amount awarded by the learned Court below. He states that since complainant has already received the entire compensation amount from the accused, 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. 7. Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate, while putting in appearance on behalf of complainant, states that he has instructions to depose on behalf of the complainant. He states that parties have compromised the matter amicably, whereby complainant has settled the matter for a sum of Rs.2,05,000/- against total amount of Rs.2,30,000/- awarded by the learned trial Court. He states that sum of Rs.85,000/- has already been received by the complainant and in case remaining amount of Rs.1,20,000/- lying deposited with the learned trial Court is ordered to be released in favour of the complainant, he shall have no objection in compounding the offence, but some amount qua litigation charges may be awarded in favour of complainant because he was unnecessarily dragged into litigation for realization of his own money. His statement is taken on record. 8. Since parties have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them, as has been taken note hereinabove, coupled with the fact that 4 complainant has no objection in compounding the offence, in the event of his 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 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 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 dated 01.12.2023 & 01.10.2022 and order of sentence dated 17.10.2022, 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. Sum of Rs.1,20,000/- deposited by the accused with the learned trial Court is ordered to be released in favour of complainant by remitting the same in his saving bank account, detail whereof, shall be furnished within a period of one week. 11. Since complainant was compelled to engage in unwarranted litigation with the accused for realization of his own amount, accused is directed to deposit Rs.5,000/- with the HP State Legal Service Authority as compounding fee and Rs.10,000/- as litigation charges payable to the 5 complainant within a period of eight weeks from today, failing which, he shall render himself liable for penal consequences as well as contempt of court. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge May 27, 2024 (sunil)