IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MMO No.1111 of 2024 Date of Decision: 05.01.2026

_______________________________________________________

Sh. Naresh Kumar

…….Petitioner

Versus

Sh. Rakesh Kumar …..Respondent _______________________________________________________

Coram: o

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? ¹

For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajat Kumar, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Piyush Dhanotia, Advocate.

_______________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):

By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of

Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short “BNSS”) read with Section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act, (in short “NIA”), prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing and setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.04.2022 passed learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theog, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Case No.242/3 of 2013 and further upheld by this Court, vide judgment dated 26.07.2024 passed in Cr. Revision No.104 of 2023, titled as Naresh Kumar Vs. Rakesh Kumar, on the basis of compromise, whereby

parties have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them.

1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. Mr. Piyush Dhanotia, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent. He states that on account ofP amicable settlement inter se parties, whereby sum of Rs.4,00,000/- has already been paid to the respondent and sum of Rs.50,000/- lying deposited with the Registry of this Court has been agre ed to be released in favour of the respondent, he has instruoctions to state on behalf of the respondent that he shall have no ob jection in case the judgments of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.04.2022 recorded by learned trial Court in Criminal Case No.242/3 of 2013 and further upheld by this Couort in Cr. Revision No.104 of 2023, are quashed and set aside. C

3. Question with regard to competence of this Court to quash and set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by learned trial Court and further upheld by this Court, while iexercising powers under Section 582 of BNSS read with Section 147 of NIA, has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in Cr.MMO No.188 of 2025, titled as Chune Ram Vs. Brikam Chand wherein Division Bench of this Court, while answering the reference on the question “Whether the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash the conviction when no proceedings are pending before any Court,” has held as under:-

“36. Hence, in view of our aforesaid discussion, we are of the firm opinion that the inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./528 of BNSS is available to be exercised by the High Court for compounding the offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act only with the explicit consent of the complainant or the person aggrieved. In our considered opinion, when parties to the offence under Section 138 of the Act enter into compromise, it should be given effect to under Section 147 of the Act at any stage of the proceedings, even after conviction being finalized by the High Court. The failure to give effect to such compromise would rendfer the import of Section 147 of the Act meaningless. If this Coourt does not permit compounding of the offence under Section 138 of the Act through Section 147 of the Act on the ground that the conviction has reached its end, it would result in grave injustice being committed against the parties, who would be persuaded to continue a proceeding, which neither party intends or would benefit from. Moreover it would discourage the paorties from entering into compromise and would operate against the intention of the Legislature to promote mutual Csettlement of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions held that the compensatory aspect of remedy shall have priority over