2026:HHC:16755 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No.534 of 2023 Date of Decision: 13.5.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Sh. Tara Pati ……...Petitioner Versus Tejmani and Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Sumeet Raj Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Chandresh Pal, Advocate vice M. Loveneesh Sinh Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for respondent No.2/State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Instant criminal revision petition, lays challenge to judgment dated 19.8.2023, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi Division Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.81 of 2023, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 1/21.3.2023, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh in Complaint No. 1086 of 2013, whereby the learned trial Court while holding the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short the “Act"), convicted and sentenced him to 2026:HHC:16755 2 undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that respondent/complainant lodged complaint under Section 138 of the Act before the competent court of law, stating therein that accused with a view to discharge his liability issued cheque bearing No.141019 dated 3.6.2011 amounting to Rs. 30,000/- and cheque bearing No.141018 dated 15.6.2011 for a sum of Rs. 37,000/- in favour of the complainant, however aforesaid cheques on their presentation to the bank concerned were dishonored vide memos dated 14.6.2011 & 22.6.2011 with remarks “funds insufficient”. Immediately, after receipt of aforesaid return memos, complainant served legal notice upon the accused, thereby calling upon him to make the payment good within stipulated time. Though aforesaid notice was received by the accused, but neither he replied to the same nor deposited the amount and as such, complainant had no option but to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act in the competent court of law. 3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 1/21.3.2023, held the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under 2026:HHC:16755 3 Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and 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, petitioner-accused preferred an appeal before the learned first appellate Court, but the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 19.8.2023. 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. Before case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merit, learned counsel for the parties state that parties have settle their dispute amicably through mediation. Order dated 22.9.2025 passed by the learned Mediator suggests that matter stands compromised between the parties for a sum of Rs.85,000/-, which in terms of compromise stands deposited with the Registry of this Court. 6. Mr. Sumeet Raj Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner- accused states that amount of Rs. 85,000/- lying deposited with the Registry of this Court can be ordered to be released in favour of the respondent/complainant and this Court while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, can compound the offence and acquit the accused. 2026:HHC:16755 4 7. While fairly acknowledging factum with regard to compromise, Mr. Chandresh Pal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- complainant, on instructions, states that his client has no objection in compounding the offence if amount lying deposited with the Registry of this Court is released in his client’s favour. He submits that since respondent- complainant was unnecessarily dragged into litigation for realization of his own money, this Court may also award some litigation cost. 8. Having taken note of the fact that entire amount of compensation stands paid or agreed to be paid to the respondent- complainant and respondent 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. 9. Consequently, in view of the above, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and sentence dated 1/21.3.2023 and 19.8.2023, passed by the courts below are quashed and set-aside and the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charge framed 2026:HHC:16755 5 against him under Section 138 of the Act. Interim order, if any, is vacated. Bail bonds, if any, discharged. Since respondent-complainant was unnecessarily compelled to institute legal proceedings against the accused that too for realization of his own money, this court deems it fit to direct the accused to pay sum of Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost, to the respondent- complainant, payable within four weeks, failing which accused besides rendering himself liable for penal consequences would also invite contempt proceedings. Ordered accordingly. Registry of this Court is directed to release Rs.85,000/- deposited by the petitioner-accused in the case at hand in favour of the respondent-complainant, by remitting the same in his saving bank account, detail whereof shall be furnished within one week. The petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any. May 13, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge