IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 187 of 2025 Date of Decision: 18.03.2026 _______________________________________________________ Bhagwat Prasad …….Petitioner Versus Deepak Kumar … Respondent _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Khem Raj & Mr. Nitin Rishi, Advocates. For the Respondent: Mr. Vinod Tomar, Advocate. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Instant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, lays challenge to judgment dated 11.12.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.61 of 2024, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.07.2024 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chamba, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh in Criminal complaint No.174 of 2018, whereby learned trial Court, while holding the petitioner-accused (hereinafter, ‘accused’) guilty of having committed offence punishable under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, (for short ‘Act’) convicted and sentenced him to 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay fine amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to the respondent-complainant as compensation (hereinafter, ‘complainant’). 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that the respondent -complainant instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, alleging therein that cheque bearing No.839695, dated 30.06.2018, amounting to Rs. 3,00,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, having been issued by the petitioner -accused towards discharge of his lawful liability was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the account of the accused. Since, despite having received legal notice, accused failed to make the payment good well within stipulated time, complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act in the competent Court of law, which subsequently, on the basis of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, held the accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under S. 138 of Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as per description given herein above. 3. Though, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court, accused preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Sessions 3 Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P, but same was dismissed vide judgment dated 11.12.2024. In the aforesaid background, petitioner- accused has approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for his acquittal after setting aside judgments of conviction and order of sentence passed by both the learned Courts below. 4. During the proceedings of the case, learned counsel representing the parties expressed intention of the parties to settle their dispute amicably interse them and as such, this Court referred the matter to the mediation. It is heartening to note that parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them. In terms of the compromise (Annexure P-3), petitioner-accused has paid the entire sum of Rs. 4, 00,000/- to the respondent/complainant. 5. On 10.03.2026, factum with regard to afore compromise came to the notice of this Court, but learned counsel representing the respondent-complainant disputed factum with regard to his having received Rs. 1.5 lakh. He, on instructions of the complainant, stated that though in terms of the compromise, sum of Rs. 2.50 lakh has been received by the respondent-complainant, but Rs. 1.5 lakh is yet to be received by him. In view of above, this Court vide afore order summoned both the parties to the Court. 6. Petitioner-accused namely, Bhagwat Prasad, who is present in Court, states that in terms of compromise placed on record, 4 entire sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- was handed over to the complainant, whereafter he was ordered to be released from the jail. 7. To the contrary, complainant, namely Sh. Deepak Kumar though fairly admitted factum with regard to his having entered into the compromise and signing the affidavit, thereby acknowledging the receipt of Rs. 4,00,000/- , but states that sum of Rs. 1.5 lakh is yet to be paid. 8. Since respondent/complainant is unable to dispute factum with regard to his having entered into the compromise and signed compromise as well as affidavit placed on record, this Court is persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that entire amount of compensation in terms of compromise stands received by the respondent/complainant. Respondent/complainant, who is present in Court, though disputed factum of his having received entire amount of compensation, but fairly states that in terms of the compromise arrived interse parties, this Court may proceed to compound the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner-accused under Section 138 of the Act. 9. Since it is apparent from aforesaid facts that entire sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- stands received by the complainant and he has no objection in compounding the offence, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for 5 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. 10. Consequently, in view of the above, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and order of sentence passed by the courts below are set-aside and the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 138 of the Act. Bail bonds, if any, are discharged. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 18, 2026 (shankar)