Bhagu Devi @ Anita Verma vs. Vinod Gazta Cr. Revision No.486 of 2024 17.03.2025 Present: Mr. Jagat Pal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Suneet Goel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate, for the respondent. Cr.MP No.760 of 2025 The applicant-petitioner has preferred the present petition against the judgment of conviction dated 24.01.2024 and order of sentence dated 29.01.2024, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, in complaint No.1559 of 2019, titled Vinod Gazta vs. Bhagu Devi, affirmed by learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Cr. Appeal No.19- S/10 of 2024, titled as Bhagu Devi vs. Vinod Gazta, decided on 16.05.2024. The judgment of the trial Court and the 1st Appellate Court was confirmed by this Court on 02.01.2025. The present application has been filed for compounding of the offence, in the case at hand, as the present applicant has brought a Demand Draft for the balance compensation amount to be paid to the complainant/non-applicant. The Demand Draft so prepared has been handed over to the counsel for the complainant/non-applicant. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the non-applicant does not intend to file reply to the application. He has no objections, if in case, the present application is allowed, subject to litigation costs. As per the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, out of total compensation amount, Rs.3,00,000- (Rupees Three Lacs) stands deposited before the learned trial Court. The same already stands paid to the complainant. The question with respect to maintainability of a petition filed under Section 147 of N.I. Act post recording of conviction and sentence being upheld by this Court in a revision came up for consideration before this Court in Cr.MP No. 508 of 2023 in Cr. Revision No. 332 of 2021, titled Naresh Kumar vs. Trilok Chand, decided on 01.03.2023, wherein it was held that this Court can proceed to compound offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act even after upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the learned trial Court. Consequently in view of aforesaid, this Court finds no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the applicant-petitioner through instant petition for compounding of the offence and the same is allowed. Order dated 02.01.2025 passed in Cr. Revision No. 486 of 2024 is recalled. 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. Accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. In terms of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663, the applicant petitioner shall pay compounding fee i.e. 15 % of the cheque amount as costs. The same shall be paid to the H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Kasumpati, Shimla, H.P. within two months from today. It is made clear that the setting aside of the conviction and order of sentence in the case at hand is subject to applicant-petitioner depositing before H.P. State Legal Services Authority 15 % of the cheque amount as costs. The application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ( Bipin C. Negi ) March 17, 2025 (KS) Judge