Mani Ram Sharma Vs Karam Dass

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. Revision No.688 of 2024 Date of Decision: 12.03.2026

__________________________________________________________________________ Mani Ram Sharma ……...Petitioner Versus Karam Dass …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. R.S. Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Ajay Singh Kashyap, Advocate. _________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶4

Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, lays challenge to judgment dated 07.10.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions JudgeII, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No.7-T/10 of 2022, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.03.2022 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theog, Shimla, H.P., in criminal complaint No.358/3 of 2018, whereby learned Court below, while holding 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.3,00,000/- to the respondent-complainant

¶5

(hereinafter ‘complainant’) .

¶6

Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act in the competent court of law, alleging therein that accused with a view to

¶7

2

¶8

discharge his liability issued cheque amounting to Rs.2,60,000/- in favour of the complainant, however, the same was dishonoured with the remarks “Account Closed”. 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.

¶9

Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment and order dated 17.03.2022, 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.

¶10

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-II, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 07.10.2023, 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 learned Courts below.

¶11

Before case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merit, parties have entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them.

¶12

Today during proceedings of the case, learned counsel for the accused, on instructions, states before this Court that accused has paid

¶13

3

¶14

the entire amount of compensation to the complainant awarded by learned trial Court. He states that on account of aforesaid amicable settlement arrived inter se parties, this Court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, may proceed to compound the offence and acquit the accused from the charges framed against him.

¶15

Mr. Ajay Singh Chauhan, Advocate, has filed Power of Attorney on behalf of the complainant. He, on instructions of the complainant, states that entire amount of compensation awarded by the learned Court below has been received by the complainant, as such, he has no objection in compounding the offence and acquitting of the accused from the charges framed against him under Section 138 of the Act.

¶16

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, 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 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.

¶17

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 17.03.2022 and 07.10.2023, passed by the learned Courts below are

¶18

4

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge

¶22

March 12, 2026 (sunil)

Mani Ram Sharma v. Karam Dass

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mani Ram Sharma v. Karam Dass

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

Chaman Lal Vs Prem Singh

Deepanshu Kaushal Vs State of Hp and Others

Vikas Vs State of Hp

Seema Takshak Vs Shri Ram Finance Company Ltd.

Karan Kumar Vs Jai Prakash (now deceased) through LRs

Madan Lal Vs Bhupinder Kumar and Anr.