Suresh Kumar vs. Asha Ram Cr.MP No. 757 of 2026 in Cr. Revision No. 734 of 2024 11.03.2026 Present: Mr. Ravinder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Prakash Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent. Cr.MP No. 757 of 2026 The applicant/accused was convicted by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shillai, District Sirmour, H.P. for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, ‘NI Act’) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months, pay a compensation of ₹1,67,000/- (₹1,60,000/- cheque amount and ₹,7000/- for suffering) vide judgment dated 6.06.2023 and order of sentence dated 15.06.2023 in Criminal Complaint No. 69/3 of 2019. The applicant/accused filed an appeal, which was registered as Cr. Appeal No. 99 of 2023 titled Suresh Kumar vs. Asha Ram and the same was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paonta Sahib, District Simrour, H.P. on 13.09.2024. He preferred a revision before this Court, which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 734 of 2024, and was dismissed on 15.12.2025. The applicant/accused has now filed an application under Section 528 of BNSS read with Section 147 of the NI Act for granting permission to compound the offence based on a compromise effected between the parties. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court held in Chune Ram vs. Brikam Chand, 2025:HHC:38122, that the Court can quash the conviction even after its finalization in criminal revision based on the compromise effected between the parties. This judgment is binding upon this Court. It was submitted that the cheque amount of 7.5% has to be deposited as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar, (2025) 259 Comp Cas 685: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2069. This submission is not acceptable because the judgment does not deal with a situation where the matter has been decided by the High Court, and the matter has been compromised after the decision of the Court. Hon’ble Supreme Court held that 7.5% of the cheque amount has to be deposited when the matter is pending before the High Court. Therefore, the submission that 7.5% of the cheque amount has to be deposited cannot be accepted. The applicant/accused had unsuccessfully contested the matter before the learned Trial Court, learned Appellate Court and this Court. He has compromised the matter after the decision of this Court. This Court invested the time in going through the case file, hearing the arguments and adjudicating the pleas taken by the parties. This time could have been utilized in the disposal of other matters which are pending before this Court. A tendency has grown amongst the litigants to challenge the judgments of the learned Courts below before this Court, inviting the findings on merits, and compromise the matter after the findings go against them. This tendency is taking up the valuable judicial time of the Court leading to the increase in the pendency of the cases. This tendency has to be discouraged with heavy hands to utilise the precious time of the Court to adjudicate other pending matters. Hence, it is considered appropriate that 15% of the cheque amount as proposed in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. [(2010) 159 Comp Cas 1 (SC); (2010) 5 SCC 663; (2010) 2 SCC (Civ) 520; (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1328; 2010 SCC OnLine SC 546 be imposed as costs to dissuade the litigants from taking a chance by arguing the matter on merits and thereafter compromising the matter by paying the nominal amount. Therefore, it is ordered that 15% of the cheque amount would be deposited before the H.P. State Legal Services Authority, after which the plea for composition would be considered by the Court. Let the amount be deposited and the matter be listed thereafter. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 11th March, 2026 (ravinder) Case called again 11.03.2026 Present: M/s Ashish Kumar and Ravinder Singh, Advocates, for the petitioner. Mr. Prakash Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent. A receipt of ₹25,050/- being more than the 15% of cheque amount of ₹1,60,000/- issued by Member Secretary, H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Kasumpti Shimla, H.P. has been placed on record. Learned counsel for respondent/complainant, under instructions, submits that the matter has been reconciled between the parties and he has no objection in case the present application is allowed. The record shows that the petitioner/accused was convicted and sentenced by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shillai, District Simrour, H.P. (learned Trial Court) in Criminal complaint No. 69/3 of 2019 titled Asha Ram vs. Suresh Kumar vide judgment of conviction dated 06.06.2023 and order of sentence dated 15.06.2023. The petitioner/accused unsuccessfully challenged his conviction and sentence before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) in Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 2023 titled Suresh Kumar vs Asha Ram decided on 13.09.2024 and before this Court in Cr. Revision No. 734 of 2024 titled Suresh Kumar versus Asha Ram decided on 15.12.2025. The Division Bench of this Court held in Chune Ram vs. Brikam Chand, 2025:HHC:38122 decided on 13.11.2025 that the Court can quash the conviction even after its finalization in criminal revision based on the compromise effected between the parties. This judgment is binding upon this Court. In view of this judgment, the present application is allowed and the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court as affirmed by learned Appellate Court and by this Court in Cr. Revision No 734 of 2024 decided on 15.12.2025 are ordered to be quashed. It has been submitted that ₹92,000/- has been deposited in the Court of learned Trial Court which are to be disbursed to the complainant in terms of the compromise. Let the amount of ₹92,000/- deposited before learned Trial Court are ordered to be disbursed to the respondent /complainant by remitting the same to his savings bank account on furnishing of the bank account details, if not furnished earlier. In view of the above, the present application is disposed of. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 11th March, 2026 (ravinder)