IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP No.1668 of 2026 in Cr.R. No.739 of 2025 Date of Decision: 05..05.2026 ____________________________________________________________P_________

Raja Jai Sayal ……...Applicant/Petitioner Versus Sh. Rakesh Kathuria …....Non-applicant/Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? f For the Petitioner: Mr. R.K. Gaoutam, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Jai Ram Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Mr. Balwant Singh Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. Vinod Kumar Soni, Advocate.

_________________________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

By way of instant application filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, prayer has been made by the applicant-accused for compounding of offence alleged to have been committed under Section 138 of the Act.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that non-applicant/respondent/complainant (for short ‘complainant’)

Hfiled a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘Act’) in the competent court of law, alleging therein that accused with a view to discharge his liability issued cheque bearing No.001879 dated 23.2.2015 amounting to Rs. 9,00,000/- in favour of the complainant, however, aforesaid cheque on its presentation to the bank concerned was dishonoured with remarks “funds insufficient”. After receipt of aforesaid return memo, complainant served accused with a legal notice, however, since petitioner-accused failed to make the payment good within the time stipulated in the legal notice, respondent/complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra, District Kangra, H.imachal Pradesh.

3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 29.11.2023/04.12.2023, held the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay compensatiorn to the tune of Rs.12,00,000/- to the complainant.

4. Though, o at the first instance, accused preferred an appeal in the Court oCf learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, however, same was dismissed vide judgment dated 26.11.2025. Being aggrieved and dgissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment passed by learned first appellate icourt, applicant-accused preferred Criminal Revision No.739 of 2025 in this Court, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated

24.04.2026.

5. Since after passing of aforesaid judgment dated 24.04.2026, applicant-accused compromised the matter with the non-applicant/respondent/complainant, whereby accused has paid the entire amount to the complainant, applicant-accused has approached this Court in the instant application filed under Section 528 of BNSS, praying therein for compounding of the offence under Section 147 of the Act.

6. Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that amount of ₹3,60,000/- lying deposited with the trial Co.urt has been agreed to be released in favour of respondent/complainant and besides above, he has already paid sum of ₹8,40,000/- in cash to the complainant. He states that since petitioner/accused has agreed to settle the dispute with the complainant as per the compromise, detailed hereinabove, this Court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, may proceed to compound the offence.

7. Complainant has crome present and is being represented by Mr. Balwant Singh Thakur, Advocate. Complainant states on oath that he of his own volition and without there being any external pressure, has entered into cCompromise with the petitioner/accused, whereby they have decided to settle their dispute amicably inter se them. He states that as per comprom