Disposed¶13

Hukam Chand v. Raj Pal

Himachal Pradesh HC9 Apr 2026CR.A/110/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act; Section 378 Cr.P.C.; criminal appeal against dismissal of cheque-bounce complaint; mediation; compromise disposal; settlement ₹1,00,000/- (₹66,000/- + ₹34,000/-); Special Magistrate Kullu; Cr. Complaint No.5941/2013; judgment dated 22.11.2014; mediator Aman Sood; Hukam Chand v. Raj Pal; Criminal Appeal No.110 of 2015; High Court of Himachal Pradesh; Justice Sandeep Sharma; decided 09.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of as compromised following full payment of the mediated settlement; no adjudication on merits. ¶13

Hukam Chand Vs Raj Pal — Cheque Dishonour | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Criminal Appeal No.110 of 2015

¶3

Date of Decision: 09.04.2026

¶4

________________________________________________________________ Hukam Chand …….Appellant Versus Raj Pal … Respondent ________________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Appellant: Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate.

¶5

Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):

¶6

Instant Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. lays challenge to the judgment dated 22.11.2014, passed by learned Special Magistrate, Kullu, in Cr. Complaint No.5941/2013, whereby complaint filed by the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act came to be dismissed.

¶7

Before case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merits, learned counsel representing the parties expressed their intention to get their matter settled by way of mediation and as such, this Court referred the matter to Mr. Aman Sood, learned Mediator, for mediation.

¶8

It is heartening to note that with the sincere efforts put in by the learned Mediator, parties have able to settle the

¶9

matter for a sum of ₹1,00,000/-, as is evident from the orders 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶10

¶11

dated 15.12.2025, 02.03.2026 and 07.04.2026, which are already made part of the mediation record. As per the compromise, sum of ₹66,000/- was received by the complainant on 02.03.2026 and remaining sum of ₹34,000/- was to be paid on or before 31.03.2026.

¶12

Mr. Maan Singh, learned counsel representing the appellant, fairly states that sum of ₹34,000/- has also been received by the appellant and as such, as of today entire amount in terms of compromise stands received. He states that in view of aforesaid compromise, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings.

¶13

In view of the above, present appeal is disposed of, as compromised.

¶14

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶15

April 09, 2026 (Rajeev Raturi)

Hukam Chand v. Raj Pal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hukam Chand v. Raj Pal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karan Pal Vs Parvesh Kumar and Another

State Vs Hari Hara Nand

Mohar Singh Vs Roshan Lal

Ravin Sharma Vs Surinder Pal Sharma and Another

Dhanbir Singh Vs Vijender Singh

Devinder Kumar Vs State of Hp