2025:HHC:29479 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 499 of 2025 Decided on    :    30 th   August, 2025 Jagmohan Mehta …Petitioner Versus Suresh Kumar …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Petitioner Jagmohan Mehta, in the custody of C. Anil No.582 and C. Vikas No.861, of Model Central Jail, Kanda. Ms. Ritta Goswami, Senior Advocate with  Ms. Komal Chaudhary  & Ms. Rekha Thakur,  Advocates,   for   the petitioner. For the respondent: Respondent   in   person   with   Ms. Bhawna Dhiman, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner   –   Jagmohan   Mehta   has   filed   the present   revision   petition   against   the   judgment   dated 01.07.2024,   passed   by   the   learned   Additional   Sessions Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushehar, District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the   ‘Appellate   Court’),   in Criminal Appeal No.23/2024, titled as Jagmohan Mehta versus Suresh Kumar. 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:29479 2. By   way   of   judgment   dated   01.07.2024,   the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of   sentence   dated   02.01.2024,   passed   by   the   Court   of learned   Chief   Judicial   Magistrate,   Rampur   Bushehar, District Shimla, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’),   in   Comp. 138   NI   Act   No.79   of   2018,   titled   as Suresh Kumar versus Jagmohan. 3. Vide   judgment   of   conviction   and   order   of sentence   dated   02.01.2024,   learned   trial   Court   has convicted the petitioner, for the offence, punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NI Act’) and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment, for a period of one year and to pay a compensation of Rs.2,80,000/­ to the complainant. 4. After   dismissal   of   the   appeal   by   the   learned Appellate   Court,   the   present   revision   petition   has   been preferred. 5. During the pendency of the present petition, the parties have settled the matter. Thereafter, the petitioner has   filed   application   bearing   Cr.MPST   No.7665/25,   for 3 2025:HHC:29479 permitting  the  parties  to  compound the  offence, on  the ground that the matter has been settled between them. 6. Statements   of   the   petitioner,   as   well   as,   the respondent, have been recorded, in which, they both have deposed   that   the   dispute   with   regard   to   Cheque No.000004, dated 28.07.2017, has been settled between the parties. 7. Today, the accused (petitioner) is present before this Court. He has deposed that he has been convicted and sentenced   by   the   learned   trial   Court   vide   judgment   of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.01.2024. 8. Against   the   said   judgment   of   conviction   and order of sentence, the petitioner had filed the appeal before the   learned   Appellate   Court   and   the   learned   Appellate Court has also dismissed his appeal.  Now, he is before this Court, in the present revision petition. 9. In addition to this, the accused (petitioner) has also submitted that during the pendency of the revision petition, the matter has been compromised between him and the complainant.   He has also deposed that he has deposited a sum of Rs.56,000/­, before the learned trial 4 2025:HHC:29479 Court and he has no objection, in case the said amount is released   in   favour   of   the   complainant.     He   has   also deposed that the remaining settled amount has been paid to the complainant. 10. The petitioner­accused has  also deposed that on the basis of the said compromise, the present petition may kindly be allowed by setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, referred to above, and he may kindly be acquitted of the charge. 11. Respondent is also present in the Court and he has made  the similar  statement.   He has deposed that respondent, has no objection, in case, the present petition is   allowed   and   the   petitioner­accused   is   acquitted   by setting   aside   the   judgment   of   conviction   and   order   of sentence dated 02.01.2024. 12. On the basis of the above statements, one thing is   clear   that   the   matter   has   been   settled   between   the parties   and   in   pursuance   of   the   said   settlement, complainant   has   received   the   remaining   settled   amount from the petitioner. 5 2025:HHC:29479 13. According to the respondent­complainant, the dispute   with   regard   to   Cheque   No.000004   dated 28.07.2017, has been settled between the parties. 14. Since,   the   matter,   with   regard   to   cheque,   in question, has been settled between the parties, as such, the application, bearing Cr.MPST No.7665/25, is allowed and the parties are permitted to compound the offence. 15. Considering   the   fact   that   the   application   for compounding of the offence has been allowed, the present petition   is   allowed   and   the   judgment   of   conviction   and order of sentence dated 02.01.2024, passed by learned trial Court in Comp. 138 NI Act No.79 of 2018, which has been affirmed by learned Appellate Court, in Criminal Appeal No.23/2024,   vide   judgment   dated   01.07.2024,   are   set aside   and   the   petitioner   is   acquitted   from   the   offence, punishable under Section 138 NI Act. His personal and surety bonds are discharged. 16. However, this order shall be subject to deposit 15% of the cheque amount, as compounding fee, within eight weeks from today.   50% of the compounding fee be deposited   with   the   Member   Secretary,   H.P.   State   Legal 6 2025:HHC:29479 Services Authority, Shimla, and remaining 50% with the H.P. High Court Staff Welfare Organization, Shimla. 17. Since, petitioner­accused is in judicial custody, as such, he is ordered to be released, if not required in any other case. 18. It is further clarified that if the petitioner fails to deposit the compounding fee, as ordered by this Court, within   eight   weeks,   then,   the   present   petition   shall   be deemed to have been dismissed, by reviving the  judgment of   conviction   and   order   of   sentence   dated   02.01.2024, passed by learned trial Court and in that eventuality, he shall surrender before the learned trial Court to undergo the   substantive   sentence,   imposed   upon   him,   by   the learned trial Court. 18. The amount deposited by the petitioner­accused before the learned trial Court, is ordered to be released in favour of the complainant. 19. Pending   miscellaneous   applications,   if   any, shall also stand disposed of. ( Virender Singh ) August 30, 2025 (ps) Judge RAJNI Digitally signed by RAJNI Date: 2025.08.30 17:43:53 +0530