-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No.608 of 2024 Date of Decision: 22.07.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Sh. Narveer Chauhan ……...Petitioner Versus Prem Thakur …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Mahdhotra, Advocate. __________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 438 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, lays challenge to judgment dated 08.07.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohru, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal (CIS Filing No.941/2023 and CIS Regd. No.54 of 2023), titled Narveer Chauhan Vs. Prem Thakur, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.02.2023/28.02.2023, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Rohru, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, whereby the learned trial Court while holding the petitioner- accused (hereinafter, ‘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 -2- for a period of one year and pay compensation to the tune of ₹11,00,000/- 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.1, Rohru, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, alleging therein that accused with a view to discharge his liability issued Cheque for a sum of ₹10,36,390/-, 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, 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 material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 25.02.2023/28.02.2023, 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, Rohru, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated -3- 08.07.2024, 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 respondent/complainant has agreed to settle the dispute with the petitioner/accused. Counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions from the petitioner, states that amount of ₹2,12,000/- lying deposited with the learned trial Court has been agreed to be released in favour of respondent/complainant and besides above, he has already paid sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondent/complainant outside the Court. He states that since petitioner/accused has compromised the matter with the respondent-complainant, this Court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, may proceed to compound the offence. 6. Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, learned counsel representing the respondent/complainant, states that he has instructions to depose on behalf of respondent/complainant. He states that respondent/complainant has compromised the matter with the petitioner/accused and as per compromise, respondent/complainant has received sum of ₹2,00,000/- from the -4- petitioner/accused outside the Court and in case remaining amount of ₹2,12,000/- lying deposited with the learned trial Court is ordered to be released in his favour, respondent/complainant 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. However, he states that some amount on account of 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. 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 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 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. -5- 8. Consequently, in view of the above, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and sentence dated 08.07.2024 and 25.02.2023/28.02.2023, 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 vacated. Bail bonds, if any, are discharged. Amount lying deposited with the learned trial Court is ordered to be released in favour of the respondent- complainant by remitting the same in his saving bank account, detail whereof shall be furnished by his counsel within one week. 9. Since the petitioner-accused has already paid sum of ₹40,000/- towards litigation charges in favour of the respondent-complainant, as has been fairly acknowledged by learned counsel representing the respondent- complainant, petitioner-accused is now only required to deposit a sum of ₹5,000/- as compounding fee with the H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Shimla, 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), July 27, 2026 Judge (Rajeev Raturi)