IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No.26 of 2026 Date of Decision: 06.08.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Sanjay Verma ……...Petitioner Versus Ajay Verma & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Tarun Mehta, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for respondent No.2-State. _________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 438 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, lays challenge to judgment dated 07.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Solan, District Solan, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No.9-S/10 of 2023/21, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.03.2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P., in Criminal complaint No.29/3 of 2014, whereby learned Court below, while holding the petitioner-accused (hereinafter ‘accused’) guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘Act’) convicted and sentenced him to undergo 2 simple imprisonment for a period of seven days and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2,70,000/- to respondent No.1-complainant (hereinafter ‘complainants’). 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record are that complainants filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act in the competent court of law, alleging therein that accused with a view to discharge his lawful liability issued cheque bearing No.398146 dated 26.02.2014 amounting to Rs.2,19,314/-, in favour of the complainant, however, the same was dishonoured with remarks “Exceeds arrangements”. Since accused failed to make the payment good within the time stipulated in the legal notice, complainants were 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 21.03.2020, 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, Solan, District Solan, H.P., which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 07.10.2025, as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction recorded 3 by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for his acquittal after setting aside the judgments of conviction recorded by the courts below. 5. Today, during proceedings of the case, learned counsel for the parties apprised this Court that parties have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them, whereby accused has agreed to pay entire amount of compensation awarded by the learned Court below. 6. While making reference to the compromise arrived inter se parties, Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, learned counsel for the accused, states that since parties have already compromised the matter, this Court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, may proceed to compound the offence and acquit the accused from the charge framed against him. 7. Mr. Tarun Mehta, Advocate, while putting in appearance on behalf of complainant, states that he has instructions to depose on behalf of complainant. He states that parties have compromised the matter inter se them and in case sums of Rs.1,38,000/- as well as Rs.1,35,000/- lying deposited with the learned trial Court and Registry of this Court are ordered to be released in favour of complainant, complainant shall have no objection in compounding the offence. His statement is taken on record. 8. Since parties have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them, as has been taken note hereinabove, coupled with the fact that complainant has no objection in compounding the offence, in the event of 4 his being released the amount lying deposited with the learned trial Court as well as Registry of this Court, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the accused for compounding the 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. 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 order of sentence dated 07.10.2025 & 21.03.2020, 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 along with pending applications, if any. 10. Sum of Rs.1,38,000/- and Rs.1,35,000/-(total Rs.2,73,000/-) deposited by the accused with the learned trial Court as well as Registry of this Court are ordered to be released in favour of complainant by remitting the same in his saving bank account, detail whereof, shall be furnished within a period of one week. 5 11. Since complainant was compelled to engage in unwarranted litigation with the accused for realization of his own amount, accused is directed to deposit Rs.5,000/- with the HP State Legal Services Authority as compounding fee and Rs.7500/- as litigation charges payable to the complainant within a period of six weeks from today, failing which, he shall render himself liable for penal consequences as well as contempt of court. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge August 06, 2026 (sunil)