1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No.230 of 2023 Date of Decision : 10.01.2025 Prem Chand …… Petitioner Versus UCO Bank ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Servedaman Rathore, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Sanjay Dalmia, Advocate. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) In the instant Revision Petition, an application under Section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as “the N.I. Act”), i.e., Cr.MP No.282 of 2025, for compounding of offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, has been filed by the petitioner. From perusal of the application, it is evident that the matter inter se parties stands compromised in terms of One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme. No reply thereto is to be filed as the matter inter se the parties stands compromised. 2. Briefs facts giving rise to the case at hand are that on a complaint filed by the present respondent against the petitioner under Section 138 of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 the Act before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur District at Nahan, Himachal Pradesh, in Case No.32/3 of 2021, the petitioner had been convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the complainant. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.04.2022, the present petitioner had preferred Criminal Appeal No. 53/2022. The said appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 01.04.2023. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the present petitioner had preferred present Criminal Revision before this Court. 5. During pendency of the present Revision Petition, the petitioner had compromised the matter with the respondent in terms of One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme. 6. Consequently in view of aforesaid, this Court finds no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner through application (Cr.M.P. No. 282 of 2025) for compounding of the offence and the same is allowed. The matter is ordered to be compounded inter se parties. Impugned judgments of conviction and order of sentence passed by both the learned Courts below are quashed and set aside. Petitioner-accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 7 In terms of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663, the petitioner was required to pay compounding fee i.e. 15 % of the cheque 3 amount as costs. However, taking into account the financial condition of the petitioner, which has been demonstrated in the application, the compounding fee, in the case at hand, is reduced to 5% of the cheque amount. The same be paid to the H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Kusumpati, Shimla-9, H.P., within a period of four weeks from today. 8. Report qua deposit of 5% of the cheque amount with HP State Legal Services Authority be sought from the concerned authority on or before 10.03.2025. In the meanwhile, petitioner is also free to place copy of receipt qua payment made to the HP State Legal Services Authority. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent is free to move an application for release of amount lying deposited in the Registry of this Court along with interest accrued thereupon. Learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant would have no objection, if such an application is filed. 10. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. ( Bipin Chander Negi) January 10, 2025 (KS) Judge