2026:HHC:30974 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.790 of 2026 Date of Decision: 28.07.2026 _______________________________________________________ Smt. Shanti Devi …….Petitioner Versus Vishal Sood & another … Respondent _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Inderjit Singh Narwal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Dheeraj Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondent-State. ______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Instant petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita read with Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘Act’), lays challenge to judgment of conviction dated 02.09.2022 and order of sentence dated 22.09.2022, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.3, Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in criminal case No.186-B of 2022/17, titled Vishal Sood vs. Smt. Shanti Devi, whereby learned trial Court, while holding the petitioner-accused (hereinafter, 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:30974 ‘accused’) guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, (for short ‘Act’) convicted and sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay compensation double of the cheque amount of Rs. 64,592/- ( total Rs.1,29,184/-)to the respondent- complainant (hereinafter, ‘complainant’). 2. Mr. Dheeraj Verma, Advocate has put in appearance 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 passing of judgment of conviction dated 02.09.2022 and order of sentence dated 22.09.2022 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 bearing No.000036, dated 23.05.2017, amounting to Rs. 64,592/- drawn on account maintained with UCO Bank Branch Office, Army Training Command Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, having been issued by the 3 2026:HHC:30974 accused towards discharge of her lawful liability was dishonoured by the bank concerned with the remarks ‘insufficient funds” vide memo dated 25.05.2017. Since, 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. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction dated 02.09.2022 and order of sentence dated 22.09.2022 passed by learned trial Court, petitioner-accused preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (CBI) Shimla. Alongwith the appeal, petitioner-accused has also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 19.01.2024. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order dated 19.01.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge(CBI) Shimla, petitioner-accused preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.142 of 2024 before this Court, which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 10.1.2024. 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. 5. Today, during the proceedings of the case, learned counsel representing the petitioner-accused states that the petitioner 4 2026:HHC:30974 has entered into the compromise with the respondent-complainant, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably. He states that entire amount of compensation has been paid to 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. Dheeraj Verma, 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 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 5 2026:HHC:30974 categorically held that court, while exercising 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 judgment of conviction dated 02.09.2022 and order of sentence dated 22.09.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.3, Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in criminal case No.186-B of 2022/17, is 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. 9. Since complainant was compelled to engage in unwarranted litigation with the accused for realization of his own amount, petitioner-accused is directed to pay sum of Rs. 5000/- as litigation charges to the respondent-complainant and deposit Rs. 5000/- with the H.P. State Legal Service Authority as compounding fee within a period of eight weeks, failing which, she shall render herself liable for penal consequences as well as contempt of the Court. 10. Registry is directed to prepare the release warrants and transmit the same forthwith to Model Central Jail, Kanda, District 6 2026:HHC:30974 Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, enabling the aforesaid authority to release the petitioner immediately, subject to verification that she is not required in any other case. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 28, 2026 (shankar) Digitally signed by SHANKAR LAL DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone= 1933533e07baa798c8e03981ed5249aaa b30041fdc541b629a39e524cb9d2962, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER= f0acdee2938bf725fb8b3ec1e185003804 962ff708a378635c113ca06384c947, CN=SHANKAR LAL Reason: I am the author of this document Location: Date: 2026.07.28 14:44:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 SHANK AR LAL