2026:HHC:6102 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 469 of 2024 Date of Decision: 06.03.2026 _______________________________________________________ Kapil Raj Sharma …….Petitioner Versus Prem Chand … Respondent _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Anuj Gupta, Advocate. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Instant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, lays challenge to judgment dated 26/28.09.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh in Cr. Appeal No. 36-NL-10 of 2022, affirming the judgment of conviction dated 13.06.2022 and order of sentence dated 20.06.2022, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal case No.182/3/2016, whereby learned trial Court, while holding the petitioner-accused (hereinafter, ‘accused’) guilty of having committed offence punishable under S. 138 of the Negotiable 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:6102 Instruments Act, (for short ‘Act’) convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay fine amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to the respondent-complainant as compensation (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.367806, dated 25.03.2016, amounting to Rs. 1, 50,000/- and cheque bearing No.367805, dated 25.04.2016, amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/- drawn on Axis Bank Limited Branch, Baddi, having been issued by the petitioner-accused towards discharge of his lawful liability were 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 the 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 3 2026:HHC:6102 Court, accused preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P, but same was dismissed vide judgment dated 26/28.09.2023. In the aforesaid background, petitioner-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 both the learned Courts below. 4. Vide order dated 08.01.2025, this Court suspended the substantive sentence imposed upon the accused by learned trial Court, subject to the petitioner-accused depositing 50% of the compensation amount and furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-, with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. Aforesaid order has been duly complied with. 5. 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. 6. During proceedings of the case, learned counsel representing the parties apprised this Court with regard to intention of the parties to settle the matter inter se them and accordingly, this Court referred the matter to Mediation. It is heartening to note that with the sincere efforts put in by learned Mediator, parties have been 4 2026:HHC:6102 able to resolve the dispute amicably inter se them. Order dated 10.07.2025 passed by learned Mediator, which is part of the mediation record, reveals that parties have settled the matter for a sum of ₹4,00,000/- and the same has been paid to the complainant by the accused. Statements made by parties before the learned Mediator are also made part of this record. 7. Learned counsel representing the parties, on instructions, states that since parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them and pursuant to compromise, entire amount of ₹4, 00,000/- stands paid to the complainant, this Court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, may proceed to compound the offence. 8. Since parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them, as has been taken note hereinabove, coupled with the fact that 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 5 2026:HHC:6102 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 above, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and order of sentence passed by the courts below are 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. Bail bonds, if any, are discharged. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 10. Since respondent/complainant was compelled to engage in unwarranted litigation with the petitioner/accused for realization of his own money, petitioner-accused is directed to deposit 5% of the cheque amount with the H.P. State Legal Service Authority as compounding fee, within a period of six weeks, failing which, petitioner/accused shall render himself liable for penal consequences as well as Contempt of Court. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 06, 2026 (shankar)