Shamender Sood Vs Sanjay Dharmaik

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Criminal Appeal No. 539 of 2025 Date of Decision: 10.3.2026

_____________________________________________________________________ Shamender Sood ……...Petitioner Versus Sanjay Dharmaik …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Seema K. Guleria, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate.

¶4

___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶5

Instant criminal appeal, lays challenge to order dated 12.9.2024, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Manali, in complaint No. 262/2018, whereby complaint having been filed by the complainant came to be dismissed for want of prosecution.

¶6

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings as well as documents adduced on record by the respective parties are that complainant instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act, in the competent court of law, alleging therein that accused with a view to discharge his liability issued cheque amounting to Rs. 4,00,000/- in favour of the complainant, but fact remains that the aforesaid cheque on its presentation, was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. Since accused failed to make the payment good within the time stipulated in the

¶7

2

¶8

legal notice, respondent/complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings before the competent Court of law under Section 138 of the Act, however afore proceedings were dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶9

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order of dismissal passed by the learned trial Court, complainant approached this Court in the instant appeal.

¶10

4. Having regard to nature of dispute inter-se parties, this court referred the matter to mediation. It is heartening to note that with the sincere efforts put in by Mr. Praneet Gupta, learned Mediator, parties have been able to resolve their dispute amicably. Careful perusal of order dated 24.12.2025, passed by the learned Mediator reveals that parties have compromised the matter for a sum of Rs. 4.00 lakh in two installments out of which Rs.1.00 lakh was handed over to the complainant on 24.12.2025, whereas remaining amount has been agreed to be paid in installments. As per compromise, accused has agreed to pay two equal installments of Rs. 1.5 lakh, one in March 2026 and another in June 2026. Terms and conditions of the settlement arrived inter-se parties by the learned Mediator are ordered to be taken on record.

¶11

5. Learned counsel for the parties state that since matter stands compromised amicably inter-se parties, this Court while exercising power

¶12

3

¶13

under Section 147 of the Act, may compound the offence and acquit the accused.

¶14

6. Having taken note of the fact that entire amount of compensation stands paid or agreed to be paid to the complainant and he has no objection in compounding the offence, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for compounding of offence, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act as well as in terms of guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Cour t 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.

¶15

7. Consequently, in view of the above, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned order dated 12.9.2024, passed by the learned trial Court is 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. Needless to say, in the event of non-payment of two installments as agreed to be paid, complainant would be at liberty to get the present proceedings revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken against the accused for his having violated the mandate contained in the judgment as well as

¶16

4

¶17

undertaking given before the learned Mediator. The appeal is disposed of

¶18

along with pending applications, if any.

¶19

March 10, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge

Shamender Sood v. Sanjay Dharmaik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamender Sood v. Sanjay Dharmaik

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

Shiv Ram Vs Tara Dutt Nirmohi

State Vs Bias Dev

State Vs Bakshi Ram

Amit Kumar Vs Maneesh Srivastava

Amit Kumar Vs State of Hp

Arvind Thakur Vs State of Hp and Another