2026:HHC:26725 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.699 of 2026 Date of Decision: 06.07.2026 _______________________________________________________ Atul Sen Jadaik …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondent _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Ritta Goswami, Senior Advocate with Mr. Komal Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol Additional, Advocate General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondent-State. Mr. Aman Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.2. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita read with Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘Act’), prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner-accused for compounding of the offence alleged to have been committed by him under Section 138 of the Act. The petitioner has also sought quashing of Complaint No. 19 of 2024, titled Jitender Kataik vs. Atul Sen Jadaik, pending in the Court of 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:26725 learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh alongwith orders dated 10.03.2026 and 29.04.2026, whereby Non-bailable Warrants came to be issued against the petitioner- accused. 2. Mr. Aman Thakur, Advocate has filed Power of Attorney on behalf of the respondent-complainant. He states that he does not intend to file any reply on behalf of the respondent-complainant. He fairly states that subsequent to the passing of orders dated 10.03.2026 and 29.04.2026 by learned trial Court, the parties have entered into the compromise, whereby both the parties have settled their dispute amicably interse them and as such, respondent- complainant shall have no objection in case the prayer made in the instant petition is allowed. 3. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that the respondent-complainant (hereinafter, ‘complainant’) instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act, in the competent Court of law, alleging therein that cheque dated 01.11.2023, amounting to Rs. 12,00,000/-, drawn on UCO Bank, VPO Kotkhai, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, having been issued by the accused towards discharge of his lawful liability was dishonoured by the bank concerned with the remarks “ 55-Account Blocked Situation covered in 2125”, vide memo dated 03.11.2023. Since, 3 2026:HHC:26725 despite having received legal notice, accused failed to make the payment good well within stipulated time, complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act in the competent Court of law. 4. During the pendency of the complaint before the learned trial Court, petitioner-accused failed to put in appearance despite service and as such, learned Court below issued Non-bailable- warrants against him. However, before the Non-bailable warrants could be executed, petitioner-accused has compromised the matter with the respondent-complainant. In the aforesaid background, petitioner-accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for compounding of the offence alleged to have been committed by him under Section 138 of the Act as well as for quashing of Complaint No. 19 of 2024 alongwith orders dated 10.03.2026 and 29.04.2026. 5. Today, during the proceedings of the case, learned counsel representing the petitioner-accused states that the petitioner has entered into the compromise with the respondent-complainant, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably. He states that sums of Rs. 2, 00,000/- in cash has been paid to the respondent-complainant and towards the balance amount of Rs. 10, 00,000/-, petitioner-accused issued post dated cheque 4 2026:HHC:26725 bearing No. 788470, dated 30.10.2026 in favour of the respondent- complainant and as such, this Court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, may proceed to compound the offence and acquit the accused of charge framed against him under Section 138 of the Act. 6. Mr. Aman Thakur, learned counsel representing the respondent-complainant, on instructions of the respondent- complainant, while fairly acknowledging factum with regard to compromise arrived interse parties, states that since entire compensation amount has been received by the respondent- complainant, this Court may allow the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner-accused for compounding of the offence. 7. Having taken note of the fact that entire amount of compensation has been agreed to be paid to the respondent- complainant and 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 5 2026:HHC:26725 power under Section 147 of the Act, can proceed to compound the offence even after recording of conviction. 8. Consequently, in view of the above, present matter is ordered to be compounded and Complaint No.19 of 2024, titled Jitender Kataik vs. Atul Sen Jadaik, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh alongwith orders dated 10.03.2026, are quashed and set-aside and the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 138 of the Act. Bail bonds, if any, are discharged. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 06, 2026 (shankar)