1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No.577 of 2026 Date of Decision: 04.06.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Santosh Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus Madan Lal …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Ms. Tamanna Rana, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Kiran Kanwar, Advocate. _________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, lays challenge to judgment dated 26.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Shimla, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No.104 of 2024, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.02.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Shimla, H.P., in criminal complaint No.311 of 2016, whereby learned Court below, while holding the petitioner- accused (in short “accused”) guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short ‘Act’) convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.80,000/- to the respondent-complainant (for short ‘complainant’). 2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act in the 2 competent court of law, alleging therein that accused with a view to discharge his lawful liability issued cheque bearing No.012157 dated 22.01.2018 amounting to Rs.63,000/-, however, the same was dishonoured with the remarks “Account Blocked”. Since accused failed to make the payment good within the time stipulated in the legal notice, complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act before the competent Court of law. 3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 29.02.2025, held the accused guilty of having committed offence punishable 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 learned Court below, accused preferred an appeal in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Shimla, H.P., which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 26.04.2025, as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, accused has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, praying therein for his acquittal after setting aside the judgments of conviction recorded by the courts below. 5. Before the case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merit, the accused amicably settled the matter with the complainant and 3 paid the amount agreed upon between the parties in terms of the settlement. 6. After having entered into compromise, accused has filed an application under Section 147 of the Act, praying therein to compound the offence and acquit the accused from the charges framed against him. 7. Ms. Kiran Kanwar, Advocate, while putting in appearance on behalf of the complainant, states that she has instructions to depose on behalf of the complainant. He states that since complainant has compromised the matter with the accused and as per compromise, complainant has received the entire amount of compensation awarded by the learned trial Court, she shall have no objection in compounding the offence, but some amount qua litigation charges may be awarded in favour of complainant because he was unnecessarily dragged into litigation for realization of his own money. Her statement is taken on record. 8. Since it is not in dispute that parties have entered into compromise, whereby agreed amount has been paid to the complainant by the accused, there appears to be no impediment for this court in 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. 4 9. 4 9. Consequently, in view of the discussion made hereinabove as well as law taken into consideration, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and sentence dated 26.04.2025 and 29.02.2025, passed by the learned Courts below are quashed and set-aside and the 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, discharged. The petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any. 10. Since complainant was compelled to engage in unwarranted litigation with the accused for realization of his own amount, accused is directed to deposit Rs.3,000/- with the HP State Legal Service Authority as compounding fee and Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges payable to the complainant within a period of eight weeks from today, failing which, he shall render himself liable for penal consequences as well as contempt of court. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge June 04, 2026 (sunil)