2026:HHC:20061 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.81 of 2026 Date of Decision: 26.05.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Kamal Mahant ……...Petitioner Versus Chaman Singh Chauhan and Another …....Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? __________________________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Ms. Madhurika Sekhon Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate General, for State. _________________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, prayer has been made by the petitioner-accused (for short ‘accused’) for quashing of order dated 13.01.2026 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Una, District Una, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No.58 of 2019, titled as Kamal Mahant Vs. Chaman Singh, whereby application filed by the petitioner under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, ‘the Act’) was dismissed. 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 2026:HHC:20061 2 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, alleging therein that accused with a view to discharge his liability issued Cheque, but fact remains that aforesaid Cheque on its presentation, was 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 30.07.2019, held the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court, accused preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh. However, during pendency of appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, accused filed an application under Section 147 of the Act for compounding the offence. Learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 13.01.2026 dismissed the afore application field by the petitioner by holding that compounding cannot be allowed at the instance of accused on payment of Cheque amount and compounding fee/costs. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the afore order of dismissal, accused has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, seeking therein permission to compound the offence while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act. 2026:HHC:20061 3 5. Before case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merits, parties have entered into compromise, whereby respondent/complainant has agreed to settle the dispute with the petitioner/accused. Counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions from the petitioner, states that sum of ₹36,50,000/- lying deposited with the Registry of this Court has been agreed to be released in favour of respondent/complainant. She further states that since petitioner/accused has compromised the matter on the amount, which is lying deposited with the Registry of this Court, amount lying deposited with the learned trial Court be ordered to be released in favour of petitioner-accused, as per compromise, detailed hereinabove and as such, this Court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act may proceed to compound the offence. 6. Mr. Vikrant Thakur, learned counsel representing the respondent No.1/complainant, states that he has instructions to depose on behalf of respondent No.1/complainant. He states that complainant has compromised the matter with the petitioner-accused and as per compromise, sum of ₹36,50,000/- has been deposited with the Registry of this Court and in case afore amount is ordered to be released in favour of the complainant, complainant shall have no objection in case the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court are quashed and set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge framed against him. He further states that complainant has no objection in case amount lying deposited with the learned trial Court is ordered to be released in favour of petitioner- 2026:HHC:20061 4 accused, as compromise has been effected on the amount, which is stated to be lying deposited with the Registry of this Court. His statement 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, in the event of his being released the amount lying deposited with the Registry of this 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. 8. Consequently, in view of the above, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.07.2019, passed by the learned trial Court in Cr. Complaint No.33-II- 16/2015 (Registration No.203/2015) 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. Amount lying deposited with the Registry of this Court is ordered to be released in favour of the respondent-complainant by remitting 2026:HHC:20061 5 the same in his saving bank account, detail whereof shall be furnished by his counsel within one week. Since amount lying deposited with the Registry of this Court has been agreed to be released in favour of complainant, coupled with the fact that complainant has no objection in releasing the amount lying deposited with the learned trial Court in favour of petitioner-accused, it is ordered that amount lying deposited with the learned trial Court be released in favour of petitioner-accused, by remitting the same in his saving bank account, detail whereof shall be furnished by his counsel within one week. 9. 9. Since 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.10,000/- as litigation charges in favour of respondent/complainant and further to deposit sum of Rs.10,000/- 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. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, along with all pending applications. May 26, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge