2026:HHC:19363 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No.576 of 2025 Date of Decision: 22.5.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Satish Mehta ……...Petitioner Versus Durga Dutt and Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Parmod Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. D.S. Kainthla, 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 1.8.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal CIS Case No.98 of 2024, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.9.2024, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in case registration No. 100 of 2017, 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:19363 2 undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,60,000/- 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 he sold his apple crop to the accused in lots for a sum of Rs. 1,47,426/- and Rs.58,690/-, who with a view to discharge his liability issued two cheques i.e. cheque bearing No.851634 dated 20.9.2012 for a sum of Rs. 1,47,426/- and cheque bearing No.852034 dated 7.10.2012 for a sum of Rs.58,690/-, in favour of the complainant, however aforesaid cheques on their presentation to the bank concerned were dishonored vide memos Ext.C3/CW1 and Ext.C5/CW1 with remarks “insufficient funds”. 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 10.9.2024, held the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under 2026:HHC:19363 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 1.8.2025. 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, Mr. Parmod Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner- accused states that sum of Rs. 2,16,000/- has been deposited with the Registry of this Court and his client shall have no objection in case afore amount along with amount lying deposited with the learned trial Court is 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. 6. While fairly acknowledging factum with regard to compromise, Mr. D.S. Kainthla, 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 2026:HHC:19363 4 Court as well as learned trial 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. 7. 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. 8. Consequently, in view of the above, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and sentence dated 10.9.2024 and 1.8.2025, 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, discharged. Since respondent-complainant was unnecessarily compelled to institute legal proceedings against the accused that too for 2026:HHC:19363 5 realization of his own money, this court deems it fit to direct the accused to pay sum of Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost, to the respondent-complainant, payable within six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Apart from above, petitioner shall also be liable to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compounding fee with the Himachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, within aforesaid period, failing which, accused besides rendering himself liable for penal consequences would also invite contempt proceedings. Registry of this Court as well as learned trial Court below are directed to release the amount lying deposited with it in favour of the complainant on filing appropriate application within one week, providing therein account details of the complainant. The petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any. 9. List for compliance on 6.7.2026. May 22, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge