2026:HHC:14742 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 645 of 2022 with Cr. Revision No.646 of 2022 Date of Decision: 05.05.2026 _______________________________________________________ 1. Criminal Revision No. 645 of 2022 Dheeraj Kumar …….Petitioner Versus Ravinder Sharma … Respondent 2. Criminal Revision No. 646 of 2022 Dheeraj Kumar …….Petitioner Versus Ravinder Sharma … Respondent _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Arsh Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sanjeev K. Suri, Advocate. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Cr. Revision No.645 of 2022 Instant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, lays challenge to judgment dated 14.09.2022, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.4/X/2022, affirming the judgment of conviction 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:14742 dated 23.12.2021 and order of sentence dated 24.12.2021, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.III, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, in complaint No.730/2013, titled Ravinder Kumar vs. Dheeraj Kumar, 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 for a period of one year and pay fine to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/-.Out of fine amount of Rs. 4,00,000/-, Rs. 3,50,000/- shall be payable to the respondent-complainant as compensation (hereinafter, ‘complainant’) and remaining amount shall go to the exchequer. 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.024748, dated 30.03.2013, amounting to Rs. 2, 00,000/-, having been issued by the petitioner-accused towards discharge of his lawful liability was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the bank account of the accused vide return memo dated 05.04.2013. 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 3 2026:HHC:14742 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-II, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, but same was dismissed vide judgment dated 14.09.2022. 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 learned trial Court as well as Appellate Court. Cr. Revision No.646 of 2022 4. Instant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, lays challenge to judgment dated 14.09.2022, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.3/X/2022, affirming the judgment of conviction dated 23.12.2021 and order of sentence dated 24.12.2021, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.III, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, in complaint No.759/2013, titled Ravinder Kumar vs. Dheeraj Kumar, whereby learned trial Court, while 4 2026:HHC:14742 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 for a period of one year and pay fine to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/-.Out of fine amount of Rs. 8,00,000/-, Rs. 7,50,000/- shall be payable to the respondent-complainant as compensation (hereinafter, ‘complainant’) and remaining amount shall go to the exchequer. 5. 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.312012, dated 16.11.2012, amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/-, having been issued by the petitioner-accused towards discharge of his lawful liability was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the bank account of the accused vide return memo dated 21.12.2012. 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. 5 2026:HHC:14742 6. 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-II, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, but same was dismissed vide judgment dated 14.09.2022. 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 learned trial Court as well as Appellate Court. 7. Before the petitions at hand could be heard and decided on their own merit, petitioner has entered into the compromise with the respondent/Complainant, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them. 8. 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 able to resolve the dispute amicably inter se them. Order dated 04.11.2025 passed by learned Mediator, which is part of the mediation record, reveals that parties have settled the matter for a sum of ₹7,00,000/- and the same has been paid to the complainant by 6 2026:HHC:14742 the accused. Statements made by parties before the learned Mediator are also made part of this record. 9. 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 ₹7, 00,000/- stands paid to the complainant in both the cases, this Court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, may proceed to compound the offence. 10. 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 power under Section 147 of the Act, can proceed to compound the offence even after recording of conviction by the Courts below.. 11. Consequently, in view of the above, present matters are 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, in both the 7 2026:HHC:14742 petitions, 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. 12. Registry of this Court is directed to release sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- lying deposited with it in favour of the respondent- complainant, by remitting the same in his saving bank account, details whereof shall be furnished by learned counsel for the respondent- complainant within a period of one week. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 05,2026 (shankar)