The court allowed the compounding of the offence based on an out of Court settlement and the payment of compensation, in line with the legal principles established by the Apex Court.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Karol, C.J —It is heartening to note that with the intervention of the learned counsel, parties have arrived at an out of Court settlement. Efforts put in by the learned counsel tor are highly appreciable.

2. Assailing the judgment dated 26.4.2017/ 3.5.2017, passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.8, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Complaint No.174-3 of 2015, titled as Ankit Gupta v. Raman Chadda, as affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (II) , Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, vide judgment dated 25.11.2017, passed in Cr. Appeal No.23-S/10 of 2017, titled as Ramanjit Chadha v. Ankit Gupta, the accused-petitioner Ramanjit Chadha (hereinafter referred to as the accused) has filed the present Revision Petition under the provisions of Sections 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

3. It is seen that the Trial Court has convicted the accused-petitioner and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and pay compensation of Rs 45, 000/- to the complainant, in relation to offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The judgment of conviction and sentence has been upheld by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla.

4. Parties have amicably resolved their dispute, in view of the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu versus Sayed Babalal H. , (2010) 5 SCC 663.

5. Learned counsel for the accused, under instructions, states that the entire amount of compensation, as awarded by the Court below, stands paid to the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent, under instructions, has endorsed the statement made by the learned counsel for the accused. The accused has undertaken to deposit 15% of the amount of cheque with the Himachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, by 12.3.2017. The accused has been made aware of the consequence of the breach of undertaking.

6. Petitioner''S undertaking is accepted and accordingly the offence is compounded and the judgments of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below are set aside.

7. It is clarified that in the event of non fulfillment of the solemn undertaking furnished by the accusedpetitioner to this Court, not only the judgments of conviction and sentence would automatically revive but also proceedings for violation of the undertaking, under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act as also the Constitution of India, shall be initiated against him. With the aforesaid observations, present

Revision Petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application, if any.