Allowed

Atul Sen Jadaik v. State of Hp and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC6 Jul 2026CRMMO/699/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioner's application to compound the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act upon settlement between parties. The complaint and related warrants were quashed, and the petitioner was acquitted.

What did the court decide?

Compounding of offence under Section 138 NI Act, quashing of Complaint No. 19 of 2024 and orders, and acquittal of petitioner-accused.

Atul Sen Jadaik Vs State of Hp and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

2026:HHC:26725

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr.MMO No.699 of 2026

¶4

Date of Decision: 06.07.2026

¶5

_____________________________________ Atul Sen Jadaik	__________________ …….Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & another	… Respondent
_____________________________________ Coram:	__________________

¶6

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶7

For the Petitioner:	Ms. Ritta Goswami, Senior Advocate with Mr. Komal Chaudhary, Advocate.
For the Respondents:	Mr. Rajan Kahol Additional, Advocate General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondent-State.
	Mr. Aman Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶8

_______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶9

By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita read with Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘Act’) , prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner-accused for compounding of the offence alleged to have been committed by him under Section 138 of the Act. The petitioner has also sought quashing of Complaint No. 19 of 2024,

¶10

titled Jitender Kataik vs. Atul Sen Jadaik, pending in the Court of

¶11

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

¶13

2026:HHC:26725

¶14

learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh alongwith orders dated 10.03.2026 and 29.04.2026, whereby Non-bailable Warrants came to be issued against the petitioneraccused.

¶15

Mr. Aman Thakur, Advocate has filed Power of Attorney on behalf of the respondent-complainant. He states that he does not intend to file any reply on behalf of the respondent-complainant. He fairly states that subsequent to the passing of orders dated 10.03.2026 and 29.04.2026 by learned trial Court, the parties have entered into the compromise, whereby both the parties have settled their dispute amicably interse them and as such, respondentcomplainant shall have no objection in case the prayer made in the instant petition is allowed.

¶16

Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that the respondent-complainant (hereinafter, ‘ complainant ’) instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act, in the competent Court of law, alleging therein that cheque dated 01.11.2023, amounting to Rs. 12,00,000/-, drawn on UCO Bank, VPO Kotkhai, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, having been issued by the accused towards discharge of his lawful liability was dishonoured by the bank concerned with the remarks “ 55 -Account Blocked Situation covered in 2125”, vide memo dated 03.11.2023. Since,

¶17

¶18

2026:HHC:26725

¶19

despite having received legal notice, accused failed to make the payment good well within stipulated time, complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act in the competent Court of law.

¶20

During the pendency of the complaint before the learned trial Court, petitioner-accused failed to put in appearance despite service and as such, learned Court below issued Non-bailablewarrants against him. However, before the Non-bailable warrants could be executed, petitioner-accused has compromised the matter with the respondent-complainant. In the aforesaid background, petitioner-accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for compounding of the offence alleged to have been committed by him under Section 138 of the Act as well as for quashing of Complaint No. 19 of 2024 alongwith orders dated 10.03.2026 and 29.04.2026.

¶21

Today, during the proceedings of the case, learned counsel representing the petitioner-accused states that the petitioner has entered into the compromise with the respondent-complainant, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably. He states that sums of Rs. 2, 00,000/- in cash has been paid to the respondent-complainant and towards the balance amount of Rs. 10, 00,000/-, petitioner-accused issued post dated cheque

¶22

¶23

2026:HHC:26725

¶24

bearing No. 788470, dated 30.10.2026 in favour of the respondentcomplainant and as such, this Court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, may proceed to compound the offence and acquit the accused of charge framed against him under Section 138 of the Act.

¶25

Mr. Aman Thakur, learned counsel representing the respondent-complainant, on instructions of the respondentcomplainant, while fairly acknowledging factum with regard to compromise arrived interse parties, states that since entire compensation amount has been received by the respondentcomplainant, this Court may allow the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner-accused for compounding of the offence.

¶26

Having taken note of the fact that entire amount of compensation has been agreed to be paid to the respondentcomplainant and respondent-complainant 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 Court in Damodar S. Prabhu V. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663 , wherein it has been categorically held that court, while exercising

¶27

¶28

2026:HHC:26725

¶29

power under Section 147 of the Act, can proceed to compound the offence even after recording of conviction.

¶30

Consequently, in view of the above, present matter is ordered to be compounded and Complaint No.19 of 2024, titled Jitender Kataik vs. Atul Sen Jadaik, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh alongwith orders dated 10.03.2026, are quashed and set-aside and the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 138 of the Act. Bail bonds, if any, are discharged. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶31

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶32

July 06, 2026 (shankar)

Atul Sen Jadaik v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atul Sen Jadaik v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sahil Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Pawan Kumar Sharma Vs State

Shamender Sood Vs Sanjay Dharmaik

Arun Verma @ Bunty Vs State of Hp

Soma Ram Vs State of Hp

Deepak Anand Vs State of Hp