2026:HHC:6980 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 5 of 2026 Date of Decision: 12.03.2026 _______________________________________________________ Karan Kumar …….Petitioner Versus Jai Prakash (now deceased) through LRs … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Naresh Kaul and Mr. Balbir Singh Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Virender Singh Rathour, Advocate. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Instant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, lays challenge to judgment dated15.10.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohru, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.35-R/10 of 2024,affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.03.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Rohru, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh in Criminal case No.86-3 of 2021,whereby learned trial Court, while holding the petitioner-accused (hereinafter, ‘accused’) guilty of having committed offence punishable under S. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:6980 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, (for short ‘Act’) convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and pay fine/compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent- complainant (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.200933 dated 15.02.2021, amounting to Rs. 38,000/-, having been issued by the petitioner -accused towards discharge of his lawful liability was 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 Court, accused preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P, but same was dismissed 3 2026:HHC:6980 vide judgment dated 15.10.2025. 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. 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. 5. Today, during the proceedings of the case, learned counsel representing the petitioner states that the petitioner has entered into the compromise with the respondent-complainant, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably. He states that since entire amount of the compensation has already been paid to the respondent-complainant, this Court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, may proceed to compound the offence. 6. Mr. Virender Singh Rathour, learned counsel representing the respondent-complainant, while fairly acknowledging factum with regard to compromise arrived interse parties, states that since entire compensation amount has already been received by the 4 2026:HHC:6980 respondent-complainant, this Court may allow the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner-accused for compounding of the offence. 7. Though, no application under Section 147 of the Act has been filed by the petitioner for compounding the offence, however, this Court has sufficient power to compound the offence under Section 147 of the Act, especially when the complainant is ready and willing for the same, as has been fairly stated by the learned counsel for respondent- complainant. 8. Having taken note of the fact that entire amount of compensation has been paid to the respondent-complainant and 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. 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 5 2026:HHC:6980 the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 138 of the Act. Bail bonds, if any, are discharged. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 10. Since complainant was compelled to engage in unwarranted litigation with the accused for realization of his own amount, petitioner-accused is directed to deposit 10% of the cheque amount with the H.P. State Legal Service Authority as compounding fee within a period of eight weeks, failing which, he shall render himself liable for penal consequences as well as contempt of the Court. 11. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohru, District Shimla, is directed to release sum of Rs.10,000/- deposited at the time of filing appeal in favour of the petitioner, by remitting the same in his saving bank account, details whereof shall be furnished by learned counsel for the petitioner within a period of one week. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 12, 2026 (shankar)