Amicable settlement between parties allows for compounding of offences under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, subject to payment of a compounding fee.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

1. Petitioner-Daleep Kumar has filed the present Criminal Revision Petition against the judgment dated 03.09.2024, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellate Court’), in Criminal Appeal No. 66-S/10 of 2024, titled as Daleep Kumar Vs. Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Ltd.

2. By way of judgment dated 03.09.2024, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal, filed by the petitioner, against the judgment of conviction dated 30.04.2024 and order of sentence dated 20.05.2024, passed by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’) in Case No. 70-3 of 2016, titled as Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Ltd. Vs. Daleep Kumar.

3. Vide judgment of conviction dated 30.04.2024 and order of sentence dated 20.05.2024, the learned trial Court has convicted the petitioner, for the offence, punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NI Act’) and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment, for a period of six months and to pay a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- to the complainant.

4. After dismissal of the appeal by the learned Appellate Court, the present Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred.

5. Now, the petitioner has moved application, bearing Cr MP No.1847 of 2025, under Section 147 of the NI Act, for compounding of offence on the ground that the petitioner has made good the requisite payment to the respondent with full and final settlement and the parties to the lis have accordingly compromised the matter.

6. Today, statement of the petitioner, as well as, statement of learned counsel, representing the respondent, have been recorded, in which, they have deposed that the dispute, with regard to Cheque No.407982, dated 31.12.2013, has been settled between them.

7. Learned counsel, appearing for the respondent, has stated, without oath, regarding the factum, as to why, the respondent-company has filed the complaint against the accused, in which, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence have been passed, which has unsuccessfully been assailed, before the learned Appellate Court. He has also deposed that the matter has been settled between the petitioner and the respondent-Company, with regard to Cheque No.407982, dated 31.12.2013, amounting to Rs.6,50,000/. According to him, the respondent-Company has no objection, if the present revision petition is allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence are ordered to be set aside and the amount, so deposited by the petitioner, before the learned trial Court, is released in his favour.

8. Petitioner is also present before this Court and he has also stated in the aforesaid terms. He has also deposed that on the basis of the settlement, the present petition may be allowed by setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, referred to above, and he may be acquitted from the offence, punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. He has further deposed that the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, so deposited by him, before the learned trial Court, may be released in his favour.

9. In addition to this, the petitioner has also put forward the indigent circumstances, by stating that some relaxation may be given in the compounding fee.

10. Apart from this, the petitioner-accused has also given an undertaking that he will deposit 50% of the compounding fee with the H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Shimla and remaining 50% of the compounding fee with H.P. High Court Staff Welfare Organization, Shimla, within a period of eight weeks from today, and in case, he fails to deposit the compounding fee, within the stipulated period, the revision petition, may be treated as dismissed and in that eventuality, he will surrender before the learned trial Court to undergo the substantive sentence, imposed upon him, by the learned trial Court.

11. Considering t