2026:HHC:19293 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 354 of 2026 Reserved on: 21.4.2026 Date of Decision: 22.5.2026. Roshan Lal …. Petitioner Versus State of HP & anr. …. Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr Suneel Awasthi, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/State : Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for compounding the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) in complaint Case No.91 of 2017 and setting-aside the judgment of conviction dated 15.3.2023 and order of sentence dated 6.5.2023, passed by the learned Trial Court as afÏrmed by learned Appellate Court in 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:19293 Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 2023, vide which the petitioner/accused has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and pay a compensation of ₹3,60,000/- to the complainant. It has been asserted that the petitioner/accused was convicted by the learned Trial Court on 15.3.2023 and was sentenced on 6.5.2023. The appeal filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence was dismissed on 12.1.2024. Now the matter has been compromised between the parties. Hence, it has been prayed that the present petition be allowed and the offence be permitted to be compounded. 2. Mr Suneel Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Court has jurisdiction to quash the complaint even after the dismissal of the appeal by the learned Appellate Court. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in Mangal Chand Negi Vs. State of H.P. and another 2023:HHC:7278 in support of his submission. 3. I have given a considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 3 2026:HHC:19293 4. In Chune Ram Vs. Brikam Chand 2025: HHC:38122, the following question of law was referred for the opinion of the Hon’ble Division Bench: - “Whether power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash the conviction when no proceedings are pending before any Court.” 5. The Hon’ble Division Bench held that the question of law as formulated by the referring Court needed to be reformulated because there was an authoritative pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court Ramawatar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 13 SCC 635 that pendency of legal proceedings before the Court is sine qua non for exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and this jurisdiction can be exercised in post-conviction matters only when an appeal is pending before one or another which was formed. It was observed: - 9. At the very outset, it may be pertinent to mention here that the question of law as formulated by the ld. “ Whether power under Section 482 of Referring court that Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash the conviction when no proceedings are pending before any Court .” needs to be re-formulated as on this question of law, there is already an authoritative pronouncement by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramawatar’s case (supra) wherein it has been clearly held that the pendency of the legal proceedings before the final Court, is sine-quo-non and the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are exercisable in post- conviction matters only where an appeal is pending before 4 2026:HHC:19293 one or other Judicial forum. The relevant portion of the judgment (supra) is reproduced as under: "13. We, however, put a further caveat that the powers under Article 142 or under Section 482 Cr.P.C., are exercisable in post-conviction matters only where an appeal is pending before one or the other Judicial forum. This is on the premise that an order of conviction does not attain finality till the accused has exhausted his/her legal remedies and the finality is sub-judice before an appellate court. The pendency of legal proceedings, be that may be before the final Court, is sine qua non to involve the superior court’s plenary powers to do complete justice. Conversely, where a settlement has ensued post the attainment of all legal remedies, the annulment of proceedings on the basis of a compromise would be impermissible. Such an embargo is necessitated to prevent the accused from gaining an indefinite leverage, for such a settlement/compromise will always be loaded with lurking suspicion about its bona fides. We have already clarified that the purpose of these extraordinary powers is not to incentivise any hollow-hearted agreements between the accused and the victim but to do complete justice by effecting genuine settlement(s).” 6. Therefore, in view of the binding precedent of the Hon’ble Division Bench, the pendency of the proceedings is sine qua non before the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 528 of BNSS can be exercised. 7. Admittedly, in the present case, no proceedings are pending before any Court. 5 2026:HHC:19293 8. In view of the above binding precedent of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, the judgment of a single judge of this Court in Mangal Chand (supra) cannot be followed. 9. Since no proceedings are pending before any Court, the present petition is dismissed as not maintainable. 10. The present petition stands disposed of and so are the pending miscellaneous petition(s) if any. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 22nd May, 2026 (Chander)