1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No.66 of 2025 Date of Decision: 23.07.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Mahinder Singh ……...Petitioner Versus M/s Shree Balaji Jewellers and Another …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? __________________________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Udit Shaurya Kaushik, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Divya Rajta, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for State. _________________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 438 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, lays challenge to judgment dated 02.01.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nahan, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.05-N/10 of 2023, titled Mahinder Singh Vs. M/s Shree Balaji Jewellers and Another, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.12.2022, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur, District at Nahan, Himachal Pradesh, whereby the learned trial Court while holding the petitioner- accused (hereinafter, ‘accused’) guilty of having committed offence 2 punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short the ‘Act’), convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay compensation to the tune of ₹4,00,000/- to the complainant. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that respondent-complainant (hereinafter, ‘complainant’) instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act, in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur, District at Nahan, Himachal Pradesh, alleging therein that accused with a view to discharge his liability issued Cheques for a sum of ₹2,85,401/-, but fact remains that aforesaid Cheques on their presentation, were dishonoured. Since petitioner-accused failed to make the payment good within the time stipulated in the legal notice, respondent/complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings before the competent Court of law under Section 138 of the Act. 3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 06.12.2022, held the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him, as per the description given hereinabove. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by the Court below, accused preferred an appeal in the 3 Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nahan, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 02.01.2025, as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, present petitioner-accused has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, seeking therein his acquittal after setting aside the judgments of conviction recorded by the Courts below. 5. Before case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merits, parties have entered into compromise, whereby petitioner/accused has agreed to pay entire amount of compensation to the respondent/complainant. 6. Counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that entire amount of compensation is lying deposited with the learned trial Court and the same has been agreed to be released in favour of respondent/complainant. He states that since petitioner/accused has agreed to pay entire amount of compensation awarded by learned trial Court, this Court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act may proceed to compound the offence. 7. Ms. Divya Rajta, Advocate, states that she has instructions to depose on behalf of respondent-complainant. She states that complainant has compromised the matter with the petitioner-accused and as per 4 compromise, in case amount lying deposited with the learned trial Court is released in favour of complainant, complainant shall have no objection in case the judgments of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Courts below are quashed and set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge framed against him. However, she states that some amount on account of litigation charges may be awarded in favour of complainant, because it was unnecessarily dragged into litigation for realization of its own money. Her statement is taken on record. 8. Since parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them, as has been taken note hereinabove, coupled with the fact that respondent/complainant has no objection in compounding the offence in the event of its being released the amount lying deposited with the learned trial Court, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for compounding of offence, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act as well as in terms of guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu V. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663, wherein it has been categorically held that Court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, can proceed to compound the offence even after recording of conviction by the Courts below. 9. Consequently, in view of the above, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and sentence dated 5 02.01.2025 and 06.12.2022, passed by the learned Appellate Court and learned trial Court are quashed and set aside and the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 138 of the Act. Interim order, if any, is vacated. Bail bonds, if any, are discharged. Entire amount lying deposited with the learned trial Court is ordered to be released in favour of the respondent-complainant by remitting the same in its bank account, detail whereof shall be furnished by its counsel within one week. 10. Since respondent/complainant was compelled to engage in unwarranted litigation with the petitioner/accused for realization of its own money, petitioner-accused is directed to pay a sum of ₹15,000/- as litigation charges in favour of respondent/complainant and further to deposit sum of ₹5,000/- with the H.P. State Legal Service Authority as compounding fee, within a period of six weeks, failing which petitioner/accused shall render himself for penal consequences as well as Contempt of Court. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 23, 2026 (Rajeev Raturi)