1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 616 of 2024 Decided on : 2.4.2025 Sita Ram …Petitioner Versus Klaita Jewellers & anr. …Respondents ___________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________ For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondents :Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Varun Chandel, Addl. A.G., for respondent No. 2. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner Sita Ram has filed the present petition, under Section 438 read with Section 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS’), against the judgment dated 14.6.2024, passed by the Court of learned Additional 2 Sessions Judge, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Court’), in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2024, titled as, ‘Sita Ram versus Klaita Jewellers’. 2. By way of judgment dated 14.6.2024, learned Appellate Court has dismissed the aforesaid appeal. 3. The said appeal was preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 26.2.2024, passed by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in Criminal case No. 704-3 of 2019, titled as, ‘Klaita Jewellers vs. Sita Ram’. 4. By way of judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as referred to above, the learned trial Court has convicted the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 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 3 imprisonment, for a period of two months and to pay a compensation of Rs. 6,20,000/- to the complainant. 5. 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. 758 of 2025, which has been jointly moved by learned counsel for the parties, before this Court, in which, he has prayed that permission to compound the offence may kindly be accorded. 6. The petitioner has appeared before this Court today, and stated on oath that the matter has been settled with the respondent. He has further stated that he has paid the entire settled amount to the complainant. 7. The respondent/complainant has made statement, on oath, acknowledging the factual position, as asserted by the petitioner, in his statement, recorded on oath. Lastly, he has stated 4 that he has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed. 8. Keeping in view the fact that the parties to the lis have compromised the matter, application bearing Cr. M.P. No. 758 of 2025 is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to compound the offence. 9. Consequently, the present petition is allowed, and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, referred to above, passed by the learned trial Court, and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court, are set aside, and accused is acquitted from the offence, punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, subject to payment of 5% of the cheque amount, as compounding fee. 50% of the compounding fee shall be deposited by the 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 eight weeks, from today. 5 10. 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 applicant shall surrender before the learned trial Court to serve out the substantive sentence, imposed by the learned trial Court. 11. Accordingly, the present Revision Petition, is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The bail bonds furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. (Virender Singh) Judge April 2, 2025 (Kalpana)