IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 628 of 2025 Date of Decision: 16.04.2026 _______________________________________________________ Vinod Kumar …….Petitioner Versus Surjeet Singh … Respondent _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Gurdev Negi, Advocate. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Instant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, lays challenge to judgment dated 21.08.2025, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.31/10/2023, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.07.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, in case No.118/3 of 2016/15, 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 undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and pay 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- to respondent-complainant (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 competent Court of law, alleging therein that cheque bearing No.497635, dated 05.04.2015, amounting to Rs. 4,00,000/-, drawn on Himachal Gramin Bank, Branch Office, Darlaghat, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, having been issued by the petitioner-accused towards discharge of his lawful liability was returned unpaid by the bank for the reason “ Payment stopped by the drawer” vide memo dated 13.04.2015. 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 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 Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, but same was dismissed vide judgment dated 21.08.2025. In the aforesaid 3 background, 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 learned trial Court as well as Appellate Court. 4. Before the case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merit, petitioner has entered into the compromise with the respondent/Complainant, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them. 5. During proceedings of the case, learned counsel representing the parties apprised this Court with regard to intention of the parties to settle the matter inter se them and accordingly, this Court referred the matter to Mediation. It is heartening to note that with the sincere efforts put in by learned Mediator, parties have been able to resolve the dispute amicably inter se them. Order dated 10.04.2026 passed by learned Mediator, which is part of the mediation record, reveals that parties have settled the matter for a sum of ₹1,50,000/- and the same has been paid to the complainant by the accused. Statements made by parties before the learned Mediator are also made part of this record. 6. Learned counsel representing the parties, on instructions, states that since parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them and pursuant to compromise, entire amount of ₹1, 50,000/- stands paid to the complainant, this Court, while 4 exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, may proceed to compound the offence. 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, 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 order of sentence passed by learned trial Court as well as Appellate Court 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. Interim order, if any, is vacated. 9. Since complainant was compelled to engage in unwarranted litigation with the accused for realization of his own amount, petitioner-accused is directed to pay sum of Rs. 10,000/- as 5 litigation charges to the respondent-complainant and deposit Rs. 5000/- with the H.P. State Legal Service Authority as compounding fee within a period of eight weeks, failing which, he shall render himself liable for penal consequences as well as contempt of the Court. 10. Learned trial Court is directed to release the amount lying deposited with it in favour of the petitioner-accused, by remitting the same in his saving bank account, details whereof shall be furnished by learned counsel for the petitioner-accused within a period of two weeks. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge April 16, 2026 (shankar)