IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No.205 of 2026 Date of Decision: 27.05.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Layak Ram ……...Petitioner Versus Sh. Parkash Chopra …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Ravi Tegta, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. K.S. Gill, Advocate. __________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Instant criminal revision petition filed under 438 read with Section 442 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, lays challenge to judgment dated 01.07.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.155/2024, titled Layak Ram Vs. Shri Parkash Chopra, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.03.2024, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, whereby the learned trial Court while holding the petitioner-accused (hereinafter, ‘accused’) guilty of having committed offence 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 fifteen days and pay compensation to the tune of ₹3,00,000/- to the complainant. -2- 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 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, alleging therein that accused with a view to discharge his liability issued two Cheques amounting to ₹1,00,000/- and ₹1,50,000/-, respectively, 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, 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 30.03.2024, 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 Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 01.07.2025, as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial -3- Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, 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 complainant has agreed to settle the dispute with the petitioner/accused. Counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions from the petitioner, states that entire amount of compensation has been paid to the complainant. He states that since petitioner/accused has paid entire compensation amount to the complainant, as per compromise, detailed hereinabove, this Court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act may proceed to compound the offence. 6. Complainant Parkash Chopra has come present in Court and is being represented by Mr. K.S. Gill, Advocate. He states on oath that he, of his own volition and without there being any external pressure, has entered into compromise with the petitioner/accused, whereby they have decided to settle their dispute amicably inter se them. He states that since he has compromised the matter with the petitioner-accused and as per compromise, entire amount of compensation awarded by learned trial Court has been paid to him, he shall have no objection in case the judgments of -4- conviction passed by the learned Courts below are quashed and set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge framed against him. However, he states that some amount on account of litigation charges may be awarded in his favour, because he was unnecessarily dragged into litigation for realization of his own money. His statement made on oath is taken on record. 7. 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, 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. 8. Consequently, in view of the above, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and sentence dated 01.07.2025 and 30.03.2024, passed by the learned Appellate Court as well as learned trial Court are quashed and set aside and the petitioner-accused -5- 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. 9. Since respondent/complainant was compelled to engage in unwarranted litigation with the petitioner/accused for realization of his own money, petitioner-accused is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as litigation charges in favour of respondent/complainant and further to deposit sum of Rs.5000/- with the H.P. State Legal Service Authority as compounding fee, within a period of eight weeks, failing which petitioner/accused shall render himself for penal consequences as well as Contempt of Court. List for compliance on 05.08.2026. (Sandeep Sharma), May 27, 2026 Judge (Rajeev Raturi)