2026:HHC:5649 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No.4185 of 2013 Date of Decision: 05.03.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Shanti Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Another …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? __________________________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Varun Rana, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate General, for State. Mr. Surinder Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. _________________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Instant criminal revision petition, lays challenge to judgment dated 17.10.2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.4 of 2009, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.12.2008, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., titled “Sh. Narender Singh Vs. Shanti Kumar”, whereby the learned trial Court, while holding the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable 2026:HHC:5649 2 Instruments Act (in short the “Act"), convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay compensation to the tune of ₹1,70,000/- to the complainant. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that respondent-complainant (hereinafter, ‘complainant’) instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act, in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., alleging therein that accused with a view to discharge his liability issued Cheque for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, but fact remains that aforesaid Cheque on its presentation, was dishonoured. Since petitioner-accused failed to make the payment good within the time stipulated in the legal notice, respondent/complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings before the competent Court of law under Section 138 of the Act. 3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 31.12.2008, held the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, sentenced him as per the description given herein above. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by the Court below, accused preferred an appeal in the 2026:HHC:5649 3 Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 17.10.2013, as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, present petitioner- accused has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, seeking therein his acquittal after setting aside the judgments of conviction recorded by the Courts below. 5. 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 05.01.2026 passed by learned Mediator, which is part of the mediation record, reveals that parties have settled the matter for a sum of ₹2,40,000/- 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. 6. 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 ₹2,40,000/- stands 2026:HHC:5649 4 paid to the complainant, this Court while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act may proceed to compound the offence. 7. 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. 8. Consequently, in view of the above, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and sentence dated 17.10.2013 and 31.12.2008, passed by the Courts below are quashed and 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. 9. Since respondent/complainant was compelled to engage in unwarranted litigation with the petitioner/accused for realization of his 2026:HHC:5649 5 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. March 05, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (Rajeev Raturi) Judge