IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 965 of 2024 Date of Decision: 10th January 2024. Roop Lal. .....petitioner. Versus Biri Singh and another …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Mohar Singh, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Nitin Rishi, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. B.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.2. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge The applicant-petitioner had preferred a Criminal Revision bearing No.719 of 2022 the present petition against the judgment of conviction dated 30.05.2022 and order of sentence dated 31.05.2022, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Hamirpur, H.P. in complaint No. 75-III-15, titled Biri Singh vs. Roop Lal and affirmed by learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur H.P. in Cr. Appeal No. 39 of 2022, titled as Roop Lal vs. Biri Singh and another, decided on 29.11.2022. The judgment of the trial Court and the 1st Appellate Court were confirmed by this Court on 27.08.2024. The present petition has been filed for compounding of the offences in the cases at hand as the entire compensation amount stands deposited by the present 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 applicant. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the non- applicant does not intend to file reply to the petiton. He has no objections, if in case, the present petition is allowed. As per Annexure P-4, 90,000/- stands received by the respondent No.1 and balance amount of Rs.90,000/- is lying deposited before the Registry of the trial Court. The question with respect to maintainability of a petition filed under Section 147 of N.I. Act post recording of conviction and sentence being upheld by this Court in a revision came up for consideration before this Court in Cr.MP No. 508 of 2023 in Cr. Revision No. 332 of 2021, titled Naresh Kumar vs. Trilok Chand, decided on 01.03.2023, wherein it was held that this Court can proceed to compound offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act even after upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the learned trial Court. Consequently in view of aforesaid, this Court finds no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the applicant-petitioner through instant petition for compounding of the offence and the same is allowed. Order dated 27.08.2024 passed in Cr. Revision No. 719 of 2022 is recalled. Matter is ordered to be compounded inter se parties. Impugned judgments of conviction and order of sentence passed by both the learned Courts below are quashed and set aside. Accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 3 In terms of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663, the applicant petitioner has already paid the compounding fee, receipt whereof has been placed on record. Respondent/complaint is free to move an appropriate application for release of Rs.45,000/- out of Rs.90,000/- lying deposited with the trial Court. If such an application is made, then the petitioner-accused shall have no objection for release of Rs.45,000 lying deposited with the trial Court. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms alongwith pending applications, if any. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 10th January, 2025 (tarun)