IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No.98 of 2025 Date of Decision: 12.3.2026 _____________________________________________________________________

Prashant Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus Urvi Thapa Associates and Anr.

…....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioner: Mr. Kulwant Singh Katoch and Mr. Akshay Katoch, Advocates.

For the Respondent: Mr. Abhinav Purohit, Advocate, for respondent uNo.1.

Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional oAdvocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr.

Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for respondent No.2.

___________________________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Instant criminal revision petition, lays challenge to judgment dated 24.1.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 32-S/10 of 2023, Haffirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

27.2.2023/16.3.2023, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-I, Solan, District Solan, H.P., in Criminal Complaint No. 462/3 of 2020, whereby the learned trial Court while holding the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short the “Act"), convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 90,000/- to the complainant.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that respondent-complainant instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act, in the court of competent court o f law, alleging therein that accused with a view to discharge hiso liability issued cheque amounting to Rs. 80,000/- but fact remains that aforesaid cheque on its presentation, was dishonoured. Since petitioner-accused failed to make the payment good within the time stuipulated in the legal notice, respondent/complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings before the competent Court of law under Section 138 of the Act.

3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 27.2.2023/16.3.2023 held the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as per the description given herein above.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by the court below, accused preferred an appeal in the court of learned first appellate court, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 24.1.2025, as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, present petitioner-accused has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, seeking therein his acquittal after setting aside the judgments of conviction recorded by th.e courts below.

5. Before case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merits, accused has amicably settled the m atter with the complainant, whereby he has paid the entire oamount of compensation to the complainant. In this regard, an application bearing CrMP No. 48 of 2026 under Sections 359 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and 147 of the Act, prayinug therein to compound the offence, has also been filed.

6. Mr. Akshay Katoch, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused states that entire amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 90,000/- stands paid to the respondent/complainant vide demand draft (Annexure P-1) and as such, this Court while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, can compound the offence and acquit the accused. He further prayed that since entire amount of compensation stands paid to the complainant, amount lying deposited before the learned trial Court be released in favour of his client.

7. While fairly acknowledging factum with regard to compromise and receipt of entire a