2026:HHC:5023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 259 of 2025 Date of Decision: 28.02.2026 _______________________________________________________ Ganga Ram …….Petitioner Versus Surender Kumar … Respondent _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Subhash Chander and Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondent: Mr.Mukesh, Advocate vice Mr. S.K Banyal, Advocate for respondent. _____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Instant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, lays challenge to judgment dated 13.03.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, Distt. Mandi, H.P in Criminal Appeal No.108 of 2024 titled as Ganga Ram vs Surender Kumar, upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.07.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chachiot at Gohar (camp at Thunag) Distt. Mandi,H.P in Criminal Complaint Registration No.267 of 2022 for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, whereby learned trial Court, while 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. 2026:HHC:5023 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 simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay compensation of Rs.5,50,000/-to the respondent- complainant (hereinafter, ‘complainant’). 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by the respective parties are that the complainant instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act in the competent Court of law, alleging therein that cheque bearing No.037612 dated 21.03.2021, amounting to Rs.4,00,000/-, having been issued by the accused towards discharge of his lawful liability was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the bank account of the accused. Though, at the first instance, complainant issued a legal notice thereby calling upon accused to make payment good well within stipulated time but since he 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 the accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under S. 138 of the Act and 3. 2026:HHC:5023 accordingly convicted and sentenced him as per description given herein above. 3. Though, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid judgment of conviction/order of sentence dated 15.07.2024 passed by JMFC, Chachiot at Gohar (Camp at Thunag), Distt. Mandi,H.P, accused preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P, but same was also dismissed vide judgment dated 13.03.2025. In the aforesaid 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 Courts detailed hereinabove. 4. Vide order dated 21.05.2025, this Court suspended the substantive sentence imposed upon the accused by learned trial Court, subject to the accused depositing 30% of the compensation amount. However, during proceedings of the case, accused paid entire amount of the compensation as awarded by the learned Court below to the complainant and filed Cr.MP Nos. 407 and 383 of 2026 praying for preponement of the case as well as for grant of bail to the accused, who on account of his having not complied with order dated 21.05.2025, was taken into custody. This Court vide order dated 30.01.2026 after having recording statement of Mr. S.K. Banyal, learned counsel representing the respondent, who fairly 4. 2026:HHC:5023 admitted factum with regard to receipt of entire amount of compensation, ordered enlargement of the accused on bail. Report received from learned Court below reveals that accused has been enlarged on bail. 5. Mr. Subhash Chander, learned counsel representing the accused submitted that since accused has already paid the entire amount of compensation, this Court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, may proceed to compound the offence. 6. While fairly acknowledging factum with regard to receipt of compensation, Mr.Mukesh Advocate vice Mr. S.K. Banyal, learned counsel representing the respondent states that since the accused has already paid the entire amount of the compensation, respondent shall have no objection in compounding the offence. 7. Since it is apparent from order dated 30.01.2026 passed by this Court, pursuant to which, accused was enlarged on bail, that parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them and in terms of compromise, entire amount of compensation already stands paid to complainant, this Court sees no impediment in compounding the offence alleged to have been committed by accused 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:5023 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 impugned judgments of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.07.2024 and judgment dated 13.03.2025 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, are discharged. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 9. Accused is further directed to deposit 5% of the cheque amount towards compounding fee with the H.P. State Legal Service Authority within a period of six weeks, failing which, he shall render himself liable for penal consequences as well as contempt of the Court. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge February 28, 2026 (meera)