Surender Sharma Vs Nek Ram Verma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. Revision No.55 of 2025 Date of Decision: 17.03.2026

__________________________________________________________________________ Surender Sharma ……...Petitioner Versus Nek Ram Verma …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Harish Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Sunil Banyal, Advocate. _________________________________________________________________________________

¶4

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶5

Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 438 & 442 of the BNSS, lays challenge to judgment dated 05.04.2021, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (I), Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.41-S/10 of 2019, titled Surender Sharma Vs. Nek Ram Verma, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.10.2019/14.11.2019, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, whereby the learned trial Court while holding the petitioner-accused (hereinafter, ‘ accused ’) guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short the “Act"), convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay compensation to the tune of ₹4,25,000/- to the complainant.

¶6

-2-

¶7

Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that respondent-complainant (hereinafter, ‘ complainant ’) instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act, in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, alleging therein that accused with a view to discharge his liability issued Cheque for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-, but fact remains that aforesaid Cheque on its presentation, was dishonoured. Since petitioner-accused failed to make the payment good within the time stipulated in the legal notice, respondent/complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings before the competent Court of law under Section 138 of the Act.

¶8

Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 25.10.2019/14.11.2019, held the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence 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 Court below, accused preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (I), Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 05.04.2021, as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, petitioner-accused

¶10

-3-

¶11

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.

¶12

Before case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merits, parties have entered into compromise, whereby respondent/complainant has agreed to settle the dispute for a sum of ₹3,50,000/-. Counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions from the petitioner, states that amount lying deposited with the trial Court has been agreed to be released in favour of respondent/complainant and besides above, he has already paid sum of Rs.2,50,000/- in cash to the respondent/complainant outside the Court. He states that since petitioner/accused has agreed to pay sum of ₹3,50,000/-, as per compromise, as detailed hereinabove, this Court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act may proceed to compound the offence.

¶13

Mr. Sunil Kumar Banyal, learned counsel representing the respondent/complainant, states that he has instructions to depose on behalf of respondent. He states that as per compromise, complainant has agreed to settle the matter for a sum of ₹3,50,000/-, out of which, he has received ₹2,50,000/- in cash outside the Court. He further states that in case remaining amount lying deposited with the learned trial Court is ordered to be released in favour of the complainant, complainant shall have

¶14

-4-

¶15

no objection in case the judgments of conviction passed by the learned Courts below are quashed and set aside the petitioner is acquitted of the charge framed against him. His statement is taken on record.

¶16

Since parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them, as has been taken note hereinabove, coupled with the fact that respondent/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 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 by the Courts below.

¶17

Consequently, in view of the above, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and sentence dated 05.04.2021 and 25.10.2019/14.11.2019, passed by the Courts below are quashed and set aside and the petitioner-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. Amount lying deposited with

¶18

-5-

¶19

the learned trial Court is ordered to be released in favour of the respondentcomplainant by remitting the same in his saving bank account, detail whereof shall be furnished by his counsel within one week.

¶20

Since petitioner has already deposited the cost amounting to ₹5000/- while condoning the delay in maintaining the criminal revision petition, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for waiving off the compounding fee deserves to be allowed. Ordered accordingly.

¶21

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶22

March 17, 2026

¶23

(Rajeev Raturi)

Surender Sharma v. Nek Ram Verma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surender Sharma v. Nek Ram Verma

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

Nirmla Rana Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Joginder Singh Vs Shanta Kumar and Others

H.P. State Cooperative Bank Limited Vs Raj Kumar

Thakar Singh Bharmouri Vs State of Hp and Others

Pradeep Kumar Thakur Vs State of Hp

Parul Sharma and Others Vs State of Hp and Another