IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 59 of 2026 Date of Decision: 18.03.2026 _______________________________________________________ Sanjeev Kumar …….Petitioner Versus Baldev Singh … Respondent _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate For the Respondent: Ms. Kiran Lata Negi, Advocate. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Instant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, lays challenge to judgment dated 10.12.2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dehra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.17-G/X/2025 affirming the judgment of conviction dated 28.06.2025 and order of sentence dated 19.07.2025 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.II, Dehra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh in Complaint Case CIS No.254 of 2019, whereby learned trial Court, while holding the petitioner- accused (hereinafter, ‘accused’) guilty of having committed offence punishable under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, (for short ‘Act’) convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 for a period of six months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.4,25,000/- to the respondent-complainant (hereinafter, ‘complainant’). 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that the respondent-complainant instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act in the competent Court of law, alleging therein that cheque bearing No.467159, dated 08.07.2019, amounting to Rs.3,50,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, Ghallour, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, having been issued by the petitioner- accused towards discharge of his lawful liability was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the account of the accused. 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, which subsequently, on the basis of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, held accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under S. 138 of Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as per description given herein above. 3. Though, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court, accused preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dehra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, but same was dismissed vide judgment dated 10.12.2025. In the aforesaid 3 background, accused has approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for his acquittal after setting aside judgments of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court as well as Appellate Court. 4. Before the case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merit, petitioner has entered into the compromise with the respondent/Complainant, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them. On account of the compromise, petitioner filed an application under Section 147 of the Act, praying therein for compounding of the offence. 5. Today, during the proceedings of the case, learned counsel representing the petitioner stated that the petitioner has entered into a compromise with the respondent-complainant, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably. In terms of the compromise (Annexure A-1), petitioner-accused has undertaken to deposit a sum of ₹7,000/- per month, on or before the 7th day of each month, in the bank account of the respondent/complainant up to 07.12.2026 and thereafter, petitioner-accused shall deposit a sum of ₹15,000/- per month until the entire compensation amount, as awarded by the learned trial Court, stands fully paid. Learned counsel representing the petitioner-accused further stated that in the event of failure on the part of the petitioner-accused to adhere to the terms and conditions of the compromise, he shall be liable to pay interest at the 4 rate of 7% per annum on the compensation amount as awarded by learned trial Court and shall render himself liable for penal consequences as well as contempt of the Court. He further submitted that in view of the compromise arrived interse parties, 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. Ms. Kiran Lata Negi, learned counsel representing the respondent-complainant, submits that respondent-complainant shall have no objection in compounding of the offence, in the event of petitioner-accused pays the entire amount of compensation awarded by learned trial Court, strictly in terms of the conditions of the compromise (Annexure P-1). 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 categorically held that court, while exercising power under Section 5 147 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 impugned judgments of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court as well as Appellate Court are 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. Interim order, if any, is vacated. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 18, 2026 (shankar)