##PAGE1##

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT .

SHIMLA P

Cr. Revision No. 185 of 2024

Decided on : 31.12.2025

Kamlesh

…Petitioner

Versus f

Sukhdev Mattu

t …Respondent

___________________________________________

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge

Whether approved for reporting?

________________________________________________

For the Petitioner : Petitioner in person with Mr.

Jeevesh Sharma, Advocate

vice Mr. Himanshoo Panwar,

Advocate.

Fgor the Respondents : Respondent in person with

Mr. Paras Ram, Advocate.

Virender Singh, Judge (oral)

Petitioner Kamlesh has filed the present

petition, against the judgment dated 15.1.2024,

passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Shimla

District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the

::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2026 07:35:25 :::CIS

##PAGE2##

2

Appellate Court’), in Criminal Appeal No. 47-S/10 of

2023, titled as, ‘Kamlesh versus Sukhdev Mattu’.

2. By way of judgment dated 15.1.2024, learned

Appellate Court has dismissed the aforesaid appeal.

3. The said appeal was preferred against the

judgment of conviction, dated 11.9.2023 and order of

sentence, dated 20.9.2023, passed by the Court of

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, H.P.

(hereinafter referred tou as ‘the trial Court’), in case No.

766 of 2018, toitled as, ‘Sukhdev Mattu versus

Kamlesh’. C

4. By way of judgment of conviction and order of

sentence, as referred to above, the learned trial Court

has convicted the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as

H ‘the accused’) for the commission of offence,

punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instrument Act, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the N.I.

Act’) and sentenced him to undergo simple

imprisonment, for a period of six months and to pay a

fine of Rs. 1,60,000/- to the complainant.

::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2026 07:35:25 :::CIS

##PAGE3##

3

5. During the pendency of the revision petition,

before this Court, as per the stand taken by the

parties, the matter has been compromised between the

parties. This fact has been demonstrated from Cr.M.P.

No. 5919 of 2025, which has been moved by learned

counsel for the petitioner-accused, before this Court,

in which, he has prayed that permission to compound

the offence may kindly be accorded.

6. The petitioneru-accused has appeared before

this Court, todayo and stated, on oath, that the matter

has been setCtled with the respondent, with regard to

cheque No. 146714, dated 14.6.2018. He has deposed

that he has deposited the settled amount with the

learned trial Court, and now nothing is due against

H him. He has no objection, in case, the amount

deposited with the learned trial Court, is released, in

favour of the complainant.

7. Respondent has made statement on oath,

acknowledging the factual position, as asserted by the

petitioner-accused, in his statement. Lastly, he has

::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2026 07:35:25 :::CIS

##PAGE4##

4

stated that he has no objection, in case, the present

petition is allowed. He has prayed that the amount

deposited by the petitioner, with the learned trial

Court, may kindly be released in his favour.

8. Keeping in view the fact that the parties to the

lis have compromised the matter, Cr.M.P. No. 5919 of

2025 is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to

compound the offence.

9. In view of theu above, the present petition is

allowed, by settinog aside the impugned judgment of

conviction anCd order of sentence, referred to above,

passed by the learned trial Court, and affirmed by the

learned Appellate Court, and accused is acquitted from

the offence, punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.

H Act, subject to payment of 7.5% of the cheque amount,

as compounding fee. 50% of the compounding fee shall

be deposited by the petitioner/accused with the

Member Secretary, H.P. State Legal Services Authority,

Shimla, and remaining 50% of the amount shall be

::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2026 07:35:25 :::CIS

##PAGE5##

5

deposited by him with the H.P. High Court Staff

Welfare Association, within 8 weeks, from today.

10. The amount deposited by the petitioner, with

the learned trial Court, is ordered

Click Here to Read the rest of this document