1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 694 of 2025 Decided on : 15.12.2025 Mehar Chand …Petitioner Versus Led Ram (since deceased) through LRs …Respondents ___________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________ For the Petitioner : Petitioner in person with Mr. Lokesh Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Respondents in person with Mr. Atul Thakur, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner Mehar Chand has filed the present petition, against the judgment dated 3.6.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Court’), in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2024, 2 titled as, ‘Mehar Chand versus Led Ram (deceased) through LRs’. 2. By way of judgment dated 3.6.2025, learned Appellate Court has dismissed the aforesaid appeal. 3. The said appeal was preferred against the judgment of conviction, and order of sentence, dated 1.1.2024, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Banjar, District Kullu, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in case No. 146 of 2023, titled as, ‘Led Ram (deceased) through LRs versus Mehar Chand’. 4. During the pendency of the Criminal Complaint, before the learned trial Court, complainant Led Ram has expired. As such, after his death, his wife Sita Devi, daughters, namely Divya and Kumari Meena and son Ankush have been impleaded as complainants, in the present case. His daughter namely Divya is major, however, daughter Meena and son Ankush are minors. As such, their interests are being watched by their mother Sita Devi. 3 5. 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 two months and to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,20,000/- to the complainant. 6. 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. 5488 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. 7. The petitioner-accused has appeared before this Court, today and stated, on oath, that the matter has been settled with the respondents, with regard to 4 cheque No. 158522, dated 10.12.2014. He has deposed that now, nothing is due against him. 8. Respondents Sita Devi and Divya have made statements on oath, acknowledging the factual position, as asserted by the petitioner-accused, in his statement. Lastly, they have stated that they have no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed. 9. Keeping in view the fact that the parties to the lis have compromised the matter, Cr.M.P. No. 5488 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 7.5% of the cheque amount, as compounding fee. 50% of the compounding fee shall be deposited by the petitioner/accused with the 5 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 Association, within 6 weeks, from today. 11. 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. 12. The bail bonds furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. 13. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. (Virender Singh) Judge December 15, 2025 (Kalpana) 6