SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2577

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA


Cr.MP No.1822 of 2026 in Cr.R. No.410 of 2023


Date of Decision: 13.05.2026


Birbal Guleria ……...Applicant/Petitioner

Versus

Hans Raj and Another …....Non-applicants/Respondents


Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.


Whether approved for reporting?


For the Petitioner: Mr. Jagan Nath, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for State.


(Sandeep Sharma)


Judge


May 13, 2026


Rajeev Raturi Digitally signed RAJEEV by RAJEEV RATURI RATURI Date: 2026.05.13 19:22:20 +0530

Petitioner Advocates:Jagan Nath ,Respondent Advocate:

##PAGE1##

2026:HHC:16745

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP No.1822 of 2026 in Cr.R. No.410 of 2023

Date of Decision: 13.05.2026 _____________________________________________________________________

Birbal Guleria ……...Applicant/Petitioner Versus

Hans Raj and Another …....Non-applicants/Respondents Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioner: Mr. Jagan Nath, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy

Advocates General, for State.

_________________________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

By way of instant application filed under Section 147 of

Negotiable Instruments Act, 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’) filed 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.000598 dated 09.12.2019, amounting to ₹5,00,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank, however, afore Cheque on its presentation to the Bank concerned, the same was dishonoured with the remarks “Funds Insufficient”. After receipt of aforesaid return memo, complainant served accused with a legal notice,

##PAGE2##

2026:HHC:16745

2

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 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Sunder Nagar,

District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh.

3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 29.06.2022/14.07.2022, 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 five months and pay compensation to the tune of ₹6,50,000/- to the

respondent-complainant.

4. Though, at the first instance, accused preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, however, same was dismissed vide judgment dated 26.11.2022. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment passed by learned first appellate Court, applicant-accused preferred Criminal Revision No.410 of 2023 in this Court, which also came

to be dismissed vide judgment dated 27.04.2026.

5. Since after passing of aforesaid judgment dated 27.04.2026, applicant-accused compromised the matter with the complainant, whereby accused has paid sum of ₹5,00,000/-, as full and final settlement, to the complainant, applicant-accused has approached this Court in the instant

##PAGE3##

2026:HHC:16745

3

application praying therein for compounding of the offence under Section

147 of the Act.

6. Respondent No.1/complainant has come present in person and is being represented by Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate. He states on oath that he of his own volition and without there being any external has entered into compromise with the petitioner-accused, whereby they have resolved to settle the dispute for a sum of ₹5,00,000/-. He states that since he has received the afore amount, as full and final settlement, he shall have no objection in case the judgments of conviction passed by the learned Court below are quashed and set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charges framed against him. His statement made on oath is taken on

record.

7. While considering the prayer made in the application, the question which needs to be decided at first instance is that “whether after uph

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top