Jai Pal Vs Lekh Raj Rajta

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. Revision No.257 of 2025 Date of Decision: 13.03.2026

__________________________________________________________________________ Sh. Jai Pal ……...Petitioner Versus Lekh Raj Rajta …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Jeevesh Sharma, Advocate. _________________________________________________________________________

¶4

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶5

Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, lays challenge to judgment dated 22.01.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohru, Camp at Theog, District Shimla, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No.253/2023, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.10.2023 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theog, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in criminal complaint No.230/2021, whereby learned Court below, while holding the petitioner-accused (hereinafter ‘accused’ ) guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘Act’) convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2,20,000/- to the respondent-complainant (hereinafter ‘complainant’ ) . 2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record are that complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act in the competent court of law,

¶6

2

¶7

alleging therein that accused with a view to discharge his lawful liability issued cheque amounting to Rs.1,10,000/- in favour of the complainant, however, the same was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the bank account of the accused. Since accused failed to make the payment good within the time stipulated in the legal notice, complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act before the competent Court of law.

¶8

Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 09.10.2023, held the accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as per the description given hereinabove.

¶9

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Court below, accused preferred an appeal in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohru, Camp at Theog, District Shimla, H.P., which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 22.01.2025, as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, accused has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, seeking therein his acquittal after setting aside the judgments of conviction recorded by the courts below.

¶10

During proceedings of the case, learned counsel representing the parties, on instructions of their respective clients, apprised this Court with regard to intention of the parties to settle the matter inter se them and accordingly, this Court referred the matter to Mediation. It is heartening to

¶11

3

¶12

note that with the sincere efforts put in by learned Mediator, parties have been able to resolve the dispute amicably inter se them. Order dated 06.03.2026 passed by learned Mediator, which is part of the mediation record, reveals that parties to the lis have settled their dispute for a sum of Rs.1,60,000/-. Sum of Rs.96,000/- lying deposited in the Court of learned ACJM Theog, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, has been agreed to be released in favour of the complainant, who has already received sum of Rs.64,000/- in cash in presence of his counsel and the learned Mediator on 06.03.2026.

¶13

Learned counsel for the accused states that on account of amicable settlement inter se parties, this Court may proceed to compound the offence, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act.

¶14

Learned counsel representing the complainant, while fairly acknowledging the factum with regard to compromise, states that complainant shall have no objection in compounding the offence but before that, appropriate orders for releasing the sum of Rs.96,000/- lying deposited with the learned trial Court in favour of the complainant be also passed.

¶15

Since parties have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them, as has been taken note hereinabove, coupled with the fact that complainant has no objection in compounding the offence, in the event of his being released the amount lying deposited with the learned trial Court, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the accused for compounding the offence, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act as well as in terms of guidelines issued by the

¶16

4

¶17

Hon’ble Apex Cou rt in Damodar S. Prabhu V. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663 , wherein it has been categorically held that court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, can proceed to compound the offence even after recording of conviction by the courts below.

¶18

Consequently, in view of the discussion made hereinabove as well as law taken into consideration, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and sentence dated 09.10.2023 and 22.01.2025, passed by the learned Courts below are quashed and set-aside and the accused is acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 138 of the Act. Interim order, if any, is vacated. Bail bonds, if any, are discharged. The petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any.

¶19

Sum of Rs.96,000/- deposited by the accused with the learned ACJM Theog, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, is ordered to be released in favour of complainant by remitting the same in his bank account, detail whereof, shall be furnished within a period of one week.

¶20

Since complainant was compelled to engage in unwarranted litigation with the accused for realization of its own amount, accused is directed to deposit 5% of the cheque amount with the HP State Legal Service Authority as compounding fee within a period of six weeks, failing which, he shall render himself liable for penal consequences as well as contempt of Court.

¶21

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge

¶22

March 13, 2026 (sunil)

Jai Pal v. Lekh Raj Rajta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Pal v. Lekh Raj Rajta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mani Ram Sharma Vs Karam Dass

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Amarjeet Singh Vs State of Hp

Devender Dutt and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Others

State of Hp and Others Vs Reena Dogra

Pawan Kumar Vs State of Hp