2026:HHC:31540 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CrMMO No. 800 of 2026 Date of Decision: 30.7.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Rajesh Rana ……...Petitioner Versus Kulwant Singh …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Anjali Soni Verma and Ms. Ritasha Gaur, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr.Suraj Kumar, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Instant petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, lays challenge to order dated 29.5.2023 passed in CrMA No. 428 of 2022 by the learned Sessions Judge Kangra at Dharamshala and order dated 14.7.2026, passed in CrMA No. 477 of 2024, by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, whereby offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner-accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short “Act”), was ordered to be compounded in exercise of power under Section 147 of the Act vide order dated 24.8.2026, was recalled/reviewed and warrant of arrest was issued. 2026:HHC:31540 2 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that respondent-complainant instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act, before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 1, Dharamshala, alleging therein that accused with a view to discharge his liability issued cheque bearing No. 915232 of Yes Bank Kangra dated 30.3.2015, amounting to Rs. 2,50,000/- in his favour, but fact remains that same was dishonoured on its presentation to the bank concerned on account of insufficient funds. 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 Judicial Magistrate First Class Court No.1, Dharamshala, on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 29.12.2020, held the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,75,000/- to the respondent/complainant. 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, Kangra at Dharamshala. Since 2026:HHC:31540 3 during proceedings of the case, parties entered into compromise, an application under Section 147 of the Act, came to be filed at the instance of the petitioner-accused, praying therein to compound the offense alleged to have been committed by him. Having taken note of compromise, whereby petitioner had agreed to pay the entire amount of compensation, learned Sessions Judge, vide order dated 24.8.2021, compounded the offence and acquitted the petitioner-accused of charges framed against him under Section 138 of Act. Since amount, as was agreed to be paid at the time of compounding of offense, was not paid, complainant filed an application under Section 421 CrPC in the court of learned Sessions Judge for giving effect to order dated 24.8.2021 passed by learned court below. 5. Learned Sessions Judge, having taken note of non-compliance of order dated 24.8.2021, recalled the afore order and revived the appeal having been filed by petitioner-accused. Subsequently, vide order dated 14.7.2026, learned trial Court issued warrant of arrest against the petitioner-accused for his having not complied with the directions. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this court in the instant proceedings. 6. Before case at hand could be heard and decided on merit, learned counsel for petitioner submits that parties have settled their dispute amicably, whereby entire compensation amount i.e. Rs.3,75,000/- 2026:HHC:31540 4 has been paid to the complainant and as such, this court, while exercising power under Section 147 of Act, may proceed to compound the offence alleged to have been committed by petitioner-accused. 7. Mr. Suraj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-complainant, while acknowledging the receipt of entire amount, states that his client has no objection in compounding the offence. He further submits that since respondent-complainant was unnecessarily dragged into litigation for realization of his own money, this Court may also award some litigation cost. 8. Respondent-complainant Sh.Kulwant Singh, who is present in the Court and duly represented by Mr. Suraj Kumar, Advocate, states on oath that he of his own volition and without there being any external pressure has entered into compromise with the petitioner, whereby he has received the entire amount of compensation from the petitioner and he shall have no objection in compounding the offence. 9. Having taken note of the fact that entire amount of compensation stands paid to the respondent-complainant and respondent 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 2026:HHC:31540 5 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. 10. Consequently, in view of the above, present matter is ordered to be compounded and order dated 29.5.2023 passed in CrMA No. 428 of 2022 by the learned Sessions Judge Kangra at Dharamshala, Order dated 14.7.2026, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh in CrMA No. 477 of 2024 and judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29/30.12.2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.1, Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, 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. Since respondent- complainant was unnecessarily compelled to institute legal proceedings against the accused that too for realization of his own money, this court deems it fit to direct the accused to pay sum of Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost, to the respondent-complainant, payable within six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Apart from above, petitioner shall also be liable to pay sum of Rs.5,000/- as compounding fee with the Himachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, within aforesaid period, failing which, accused besides 2026:HHC:31540 6 rendering himself liable for penal consequences would also invite contempt proceedings. 11. Since petitioner-accused is lodged at Lala Lajpat Rai District and Open Air Correctional Home, Dharamshala, Kangra, District, Himachal Pradesh, release warrants be prepared accordingly and sent through Fax/Email/FASTER to the concerned Superintendent of Jail, immediately. The petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any. 12. The parties are permitted to produce copy of order downloaded from the High Court website before the officer concerned, however, if required, passing of order can be verified from the High Court website or otherwise. 13. List for compliance on 22.9.2026. July 30, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge Digitally signed by MANJIT KUMAR DN: C=IN, CN=MANJIT KUMAR, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, ST=Himachal Pradesh, postalCode=171001, serialNumber= ffb8dd101351467ce316ecea59f43f4b5124f5614 b850ab4d445e0686eaebf01, telephoneNumber= a63e8ec21d3802fe79457461dade5c7de95eed7 2063c34319f008e941fc48e93 Reason: I am the author of this document Location: 12345678 Date: 2026.07.30 17:16:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.1.1 MANJIT KUMAR