1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 517 of 2025 Decided on : 8.9.2025 Yog Raj …Petitioner Versus Nishant Kaushal …Respondent ___________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________ For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Shailja Thakur, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner Yog Raj has filed the present petition, against the judgment dated 30.1.2023, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Una, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Court’), in Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 2022, titled as, ‘Yog Raj versus Nishant Kaushal & anr.’. 2 2. By way of judgment dated 30.1.2023, learned Appellate Court has dismissed the aforesaid appeal. 3. The said appeal was preferred against the judgment of conviction, dated 14.7.2022 and order of sentence, dated 16.7.2022, passed by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Una, District Una, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in Criminal Case No. 335-II- 16/2015, titled as, ‘Nishant Kumar versus Yog Raj’. 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 imprisonment, for a period of one month and to pay a compensation of Rs. 6,73,000/- to the complainant. 5. During the pendency of the Cr. Revision, before this Court, as per the stand taken by the parties, the 3 matter has been compromised between the parties. This fact has been demonstrated from Cr.M.P. No. 3978 of 2025, which has been moved by learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, before this Court, in which, he has prayed that permission to compound the offence, may kindly be accorded. 6. The petitioner/accused has appeared before this Court today and stated, on oath, that the matter has been settled with the respondent, with regard to cheque No. 119194 dated 16.7.2015 and now, nothing is due against him. 7. The petitioner/accused has further deposed that he has deposited a sum of Rs. 1,38,000/- with the learned trial Court. As per his further deposition, he has no objection, in case, the aforesaid amount, deposited by him, with the learned trial Court, is ordered to be released in favour of the complainant. 8. The respondent has made statement, on oath, acknowledging the factual position, as asserted by the petitioner, in his statement. He has prayed that the 4 amount, so deposited by the petitioner, with the learned trial Court, be ordered to be released in favour of the complainant. Lastly, he has stated that he has no objection, in case the present petition is allowed by acquitting the petitioner from the commission of offence, punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 9. Keeping in view the fact that the parties to the lis have compromised the matter, Cr.M.P. No.3978 of 2025 is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to compound the offence. 10. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, by setting aside 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, and accused is acquitted from the offence, punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, subject to payment of 12% of the cheque amount, as compounding fee. 50% of the compounding fee shall be deposited by the petitioner/accused with the Member Secretary, H.P. State Legal Services Authority, 5 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. 12. 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 petitioner shall surrender before the learned trial Court to serve out the substantive sentence, imposed by the learned trial Court. 13. The bail bonds furnished by the petitioner/accused are ordered to be discharged. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. (Virender Singh) Judge September 8, 2025 (Kalpana) 6