1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 719 of 2024 Decided on : 3.7.2025 Naresh Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & anr. …Respondents ___________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________ For the Petitioner : Petitioner in person with Mr. Lovneesh Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents :Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Addl. A.G., for the respondent- State. Mr. Chandresh Pal, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) 2 Petitioner Naresh Kumar has filed the present petition, against the judgment dated 3.9.2024, passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, Division Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Court’), in Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2024, titled as, ‘Naresh Kumar versus M.J. Hut’. 2. By way of judgment dated 3.9.2024, learned Appellate Court has dismissed the aforesaid appeal. 3. The said appeal was preferred against the judgment of conviction, and order of sentence, dated 6.3.2024, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. 3, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in case No. 1201 of 2017, titled as, ‘M.J. Hut versus Naresh Kumar’. 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 3 Instrument Act, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the N.I. Act’) and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment, for a period of four months and to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,60,000/- 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 is demonstrated from Cr. M.P. No. 2638 of 2025, which has been moved by learned counsel for the petitioner, before this Court, in which, he has prayed that permission to compound the offence may kindly be accorded. 6. The petitioner has made statement, on oath, that the matter has been settled with the respondent, with regard to cheque No. 404298, dated 24.8.2017, and now nothing is due against him. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has made statement, without oath, acknowledging the factual position, as asserted by the petitioner, in his statement. Lastly, he has 4 stated that he has instructions to state that respondent 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, Cr. M.P. No. 2638 of 2025 is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to compound the offence. 9. In view of 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 10% 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 petitioner (accused) shall surrender before the learned trial Court to serve out the substantive sentence, imposed by the learned trial Court. 11. 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 July 3, 2025 (Kalpana)