1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 69 of 2025 Decided on : 4.8.2025 Kedia Ram …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. Anil Kumar Manget, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. H.S. Rawat, Addl. A.G., for respondent No. 1. Mr. Ashok Kumar Tyagi, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner Kedia Ram has filed the present petition, against the judgment dated 22.1.2025, passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, 2 Sirmour District at Nahan,H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Court’), in Criminal Appeal No. 61- Cr. A./10 of 2024, titled as, ‘Kedia Ram @ Sunil versus Parveen Kumar Tomar’. 2. By way of judgment dated 22.1.2025, learned Appellate Court has dismissed the aforesaid appeal. 3. The said appeal was preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 11.6.2024, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in Complaint No. 291/3 of 2021, titled as, ‘Parveen Kumar Tomar versus Kedia Ram @ Sunil’. 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. 3 Act’) and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment, for a period of one year. and to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- 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 has been demonstrated from Cr.M.P. No. 3258 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 appeared before this Court today and stated, on oath, that the matter has been settled with the respondent, with regard to cheque No. 000066 dated 5.10.2020 and now, nothing is due against him. He has deposed that he has deposited a sum of Rs. 45,000/- on 24.2.2025, and a sum of Rs. 30,000/- on 6.8.2024, before the learned trial Court. 4 He has also deposited the demand draft of Rs. 75,000/- with the Registry of this Court. 7. The petitioner has further deposed that he has no objection, in case, the aforesaid amount, deposited by him, is released in favour of the respondent. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent has made statement, without oath, acknowledging the factual position, as asserted by the petitioner, in his statement. Lastly, he has stated that respondent has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed. He has prayed that the amount, so deposited by the petitioner, be released in favour of the respondent. 9. Keeping in view the fact that the parties to the lis have compromised the matter, Cr.M.P. No. 3258 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 5 learned Appellate Court, and accused is acquitted from the offence, punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, subject to payment of 15% 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, Shimla, and remaining 50% of the amount shall be deposited by him with the H.P. High Court Staff Welfare Organization, Shimla, within two months, 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. 6 12. 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 August 4, 2025 (Kalpana)