1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 284 of 2022 Decided on : 8.8.2025 Susheel Kumar …Petitioner Versus Hakam Singh …Respondent ___________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________ For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Dutt Vasudeva, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. R.K. Bansal, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner Susheel Kumar has filed the present petition, against the judgment dated 23.5.2022, passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Court’), in Criminal Appeal No. 16/10 of 2019, titled as, ‘Susheel Kumar versus Hakam Singh’. 2 2. By way of judgment dated 23.5.2022, learned Appellate Court has dismissed the aforesaid appeal. 3. The said appeal was preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 27.8.2019, passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in case No. 73/3 of 2018/14, titled as, ‘Hakam Singh versus Susheel Kumar’. 4. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.6.2013, petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-, from the respondent, with an assurance to return the same within one year. The amount was transferred by the complainant/respondent from his account, through cheque No. 018180. When, the respondent asked the petitioner to return his money, he, in order to discharge his liability, issued cheque No. 275296, for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The complainant presented the cheque with State Bank of India, Branch Harnora, but the same was dismissed with remarks “insufficient funds”. The complainant/respondent served the 3 accused/petitioner with a legal notice, calling upon him, to make the payment, within 15 days, but, he failed to do so. Thereafter, the complainant filed complaint, bearing No. 73/3 of 2018/14, titled as, ‘Hakam Singh versus Susheel Kumar’, before the learned trial Court. 5. The learned trial Court, by way of judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as referred to above, has convicted the petitioner/accused for the commission of offence, punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the N.I. Act’) and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment, for a period of one year and to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,50,000/- to the complainant. 6. During the pendency of the revision petition, before this Court, as per the stand taken by the parties, the matter has been compromised between the parties. This fact has been demonstrated from Cr.M.P. No. 3028 of 2025, which has been moved by learned counsel for the petitioner-accused, before this Court, 4 in which, he has prayed that permission to compound the offence may kindly be accorded. 7. The petitioner-accused has appeared before this Court today and stated, on oath, that the matter has been settled with the respondent, with regard to cheque No. 018180 and now, nothing is due against him. 8. The respondent/complainant has made statement, on oath, acknowledging the factual position, as asserted by the petitioner-accused, in his statement. Lastly, he has stated that the respondent has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed. 9. Keeping in view the fact that the parties to the lis have compromised the matter, Cr.M.P. No. 3028 of 2025 is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to compound the offence. 10. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, referred to above, 5 passed by the learned trial Court, and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court, and accused is acquitted from the offence, punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, subject to payment of 15% of the cheque amount, as compounding fee. 50% of the compounding fee shall be deposited by the petitioner/accused with the Member Secretary, H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Shimla, and remaining 50% of the amount shall be deposited by him with the H.P. High Court Staff Welfare Organization, Shimla, within twelve weeks, from today. 11. It is further clarified that in case of failure to deposit the compounding fee, within the prescribed period, the revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed and judgment of conviction and order of sentence, shall revive automatically, and the petitioner shall surrender before the learned trial Court to serve out the substantive sentence, imposed by the learned trial Court. 6 12. The bail bonds furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. 13. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. (Virender Singh) Judge August 8, 2025 (Kalpana)