IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No.370 of 2026 Date of Decision: 07.05.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Naresh Kumar @ Titu ……...Petitioner Versus Shimla Fruit Agency …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Ankit Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Aishwarya Chauhan, Advocate. _________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, lays challenge to judgment dated 10.03.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (CBI Court), Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.80-S/10 of 2024, affirming the judgment of conviction dated 22.07.2024 and order of sentence dated 30.07.2024, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Shimla District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in case registration No.1147 of 2021, whereby learned trial Court, while holding the petitioner-accused (hereinafter, ‘accused’) guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, (for short ‘Act’) convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay fine to the tune of Rs.2,80,000/- to the respondent- complainant (hereinafter, ‘complainant’). 2 2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record are that complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act in the competent court of law, alleging therein that accused with a view to discharge his lawful liability issued two post-dated cheques bearing No.584453 dated 30.06.2021 amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- and cheque bearing No.584454 dated 15.07.2021 amounting to Rs.1,15,000/- in favour of the complainant, however, the same were dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the bank account of the accused. Since accused failed to make the payment good within the time stipulated in the legal notice, complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act before the competent Court of law. 3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment dated 22.07.2024 and order dated 30.07.2024, held the accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as per the description given hereinabove. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Court below, accused preferred an appeal in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (CBI Court), Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 10.03.2025, as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, accused has approached this Court by way of instant 3 proceedings, seeking therein for 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, parties have entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them. 6. Today during proceedings of the case, learned counsel for the accused, on instructions, states before this Court that accused has paid sum of Rs.2,40,000/- to the complainant as full and final settlement. He states that on account of aforesaid amicable settlement arrived inter se parties, this Court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, may proceed to compound the offence and acquit the accused from the charges framed against him. 7. Pursuant to order passed by this Court, complainant has come present in person and has been duly identified by Mr. Aishwarya Chauhan, Advocate. He states that he, of his own volition and without any external pressure, has entered into compromise with the accused. He states that since he has already received sum of Rs.2,40,000/- as full and final settlement, he shall have no objection in compounding the offence and acquitting the accused from the charges framed against him under Section 138 of the Act. Afore statement of the complainant is taken on record. 8. Since parties have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them, as has been taken note hereinabove, coupled with the fact that complainant has no objection in compounding the offence, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the accused for compounding the offence, while exercising power under Section 147 of the 4 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 discussion made hereinabove as well as law taken into consideration, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction dated 10.03.2025 & 22.07.2024 and order of sentence dated 30.07.2024, passed by the learned Courts below are quashed and set-aside and the 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, are discharged. The petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any. 10. Since complainant was compelled to engage in unwarranted litigation with the accused for realization of his own amount, accused is directed to deposit Rs.5,000/- with the HP State Legal Service Authority as compounding fee and Rs.10,000/- as litigation charges payable to the complainant within a period of eight weeks, failing which, he shall render himself liable for penal consequences as well as contempt of court. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge May 07, 2026 (sunil)