IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No.124 of 2026 Date of Decision: 12.03.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Ms. Seema Takshak ……...Petitioner Versus Shri Ram Finance Company Ltd. …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. M.M. Katoch, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Jai Dev Thakur, Advocate. _________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 438 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, lays challenge to judgment dated 07.01.2026 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No.427 of 2024, affirming the judgment of conviction dated 29.11.2024 and order of sentence dated 30.11.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.3, District Shimla, H.P., in criminal complaint No.275 of 2017, 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 her to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.3,70,000/- to the respondent- complainant (hereinafter ‘complainant’). 2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act in the competent court of law, alleging therein that accused with a view to 2 discharge her liability issued cheque No.880576 dated 20.06.2017 amounting to Rs.7,07,600/- in favour of the complainant, however, the same was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the bank account of the accused. Since accused failed to make the payment good within the time stipulated in the legal notice, complainant was 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 dated 29.11.2024 and order dated 30.11.2024, held the accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced her 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 learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 07.01.2026, as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, accused has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, seeking therein her acquittal after setting aside the judgments of conviction recorded by the learned Courts below. 5. Before case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merit, parties have entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them. 3 6. Today during proceedings of the case, learned counsel for the accused, on instructions of the accused, who is present in Court, states before this Court that sum of Rs.3,09,000/- has already been deposited with the bank and remaining amount of Rs.74,000/- is lying deposited with the learned trial Court. He states that accused has no objection in case remaining amount of Rs.74,000/-, which is stated to be lying deposited with the learned trial Court, is ordered to be released in favour of the complainant bank. 7. Mr. Vikas Chandel, Power of Attorney of respondent/complainant, while admitting factum with regard to compromise arrived inter se parties, states that he has authority and instructions to make a statement on behalf of the complainant-bank. He states that sum of Rs.3,09,000/- has already been deposited with the bank and in case remaining sum of Rs.74,000/-, lying deposited with the learned trial Court, is ordered to be released in favour of the complainant, he shall have no objection in compounding the offence and acquitting the accused from the charges framed against her under Section 138 of the Act. 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 its being released the amount lying deposited with the learned trial 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 4 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. 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 sentence dated 07.01.2026 and 29.11.2024/30.11.2024, passed by the learned Courts below are quashed and set-aside and the accused is acquitted of the charge framed against her under Section 138 of the Act. Interim order, if any, is vacated. Bail bonds, if any, are discharged. The petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any. 10. Since complainant was compelled to engage in unwarranted litigation with the accused for realization of his own amount, accused is directed to deposit 2% of the cheque amount with the HP State Legal Service Authority within a period of eight weeks as compounding fee, failing which, she shall render herself liable for penal consequences as well as contempt of Court. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge March 12, 2026 (sunil)