Himachal Pradesh High Court
Pankaj Ranjan vs Ankur Joshi on 6 August, 2026
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2026:HHC:33007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No.759 of 2026
Date of Decision: 06.08.2026
__________________________________________________________________________
Pankaj Ranjan .........Petitioner
Versus
Ankur Joshi .......Respondent
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Atul G. Sood, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate.
_________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 147 of Negotiable
Instruments Act, (for short, ‘the Act’) prayer has been made by the
petitioner-accused (for short, ‘accused’) for compounding of offence alleged
to have been committed under Section 138 of the Act.
2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are
that respondent/complainant (for short ‘complainant’) filed a complaint
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘Act’) in the
competent court of law, stating therein that accused borrowed a sum of
₹1,10,000/- from him in the month of June, 2007 in the presence of Roshan
Sharma and Naveen Verma. Though accused had promised to return the
borrowed money on or before 30.06.2007, however, he was unable to do so
and as such, on 06.07.2007, with a view to discharge his legally enforceable
liability, issued Cheque bearing No.115620, dated 06.07.2007, amounting
to ₹1,10,000/- in favour of complainant, drawn at ICICI Bank, The Mall,
Shimla. However, fact remains that aforesaid Cheque on its presentation to
2026:HHC:33007
2
the Bank concerned, was dishonoured with the remarks “Insufficient
Funds”. After receipt of aforesaid return memo, complainant served accused
with legal notice dated 01.08.2007 calling upon him to make the payment
good well within stipulated time. However, since petitioner-accused failed to
make the payment good within the time stipulated in the legal notice,
respondent/complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings under
Section 138 of the Act in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Court No.3, Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.
3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the
respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 01.07.2024, 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.
4. Though, at the first instance, accused preferred an appeal in the Court
of learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., however, same was
dismissed vide judgment dated 24.03.2025. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied
with the aforesaid judgment passed by learned first appellate court, accused
preferred Criminal Revision No.355 of 2025 in this Court, which also came
to be dismissed vide judgment dated 20.05.2026.
5. Since after passing of aforesaid judgment dated 20.05.2026,
applicant-accused compromised the matter with the complainant, whereby
entire compensation amount awarded by the learned trial Court has been
agreed to be paid to the complainant, accused has approached this Court in
the instant petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
2026:HHC:33007
3
Sanhita, 2023, praying therein for compounding of the offence under Section
147 of the Act.
6. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, Mr. Nitin
Thakur, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of respondent. He states
that he has instructions to depose on behalf of complainant. He states that
complainant has compromised the matter with the petitioner-accused
and as per compromise, remaining sum of ₹1,10,000/- has been
deposited with the Registry of this Court. He states that in case afore
amount lying deposited with the Registry of this Court is ordered to be
released in favour of the complainant, complainant shall have no
objection in case the judgments of conviction passed by the learned
Courts below are quashed and set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of
the charge framed against him. However, he states that some amount on
account of litigation charges may be awarded in favour of complainant,
because he was unnecessarily dragged into litigation for realization of his
own money. His statement is taken on record.
7. While considering the prayer made in the application, the question
which needs to be decided at first instance is that “whether after upholding
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned court
below, this Court can proceed to compound the offence or not?.”
8. This Court vide judgment passed in Cr.MP No.1197 of 2017 in Cr.
Revision No. 394 of 2015 titled Gulab Singh v. Vidya Sagar Sharma, while
relying upon judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court as well as other Constitutional
Courts has already held that court, while exercising power under Section
2026:HHC:33007
4
147 of Act can proceed to compound offence even in those cases, where
accused stands convicted. Relevant portion of the order passed by this court
in order supra is reproduced as under:
“8. Before acceding to aforesaid joint request having been made by
learned counsel for the respective parties, moot question arise for
determination of this Court is whether it has power to review/recall
its own order/judgment passed in Criminal Revision No.394 of 2015,
wherein judgment of conviction recorded by both the Courts below
came to be upheld.
9. Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, learned counsel representing the
petitioner, has invited attention of this Court to the judgment passed
by Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in Naresh Kumar Sharma versus
State of Rajasthan & another, Criminal Misc. Application No.371 of
2016 in Criminal Revision Petition No.1267 of 2016, to suggests that
in view of amicable settlement arrived inter se the parties, this Court
has power to recall its judgment in the light of the provisions contained
in Section 147 of the Act, which permits compounding of the offence
under Section 138 of the Act. At this stage, it would be profitable to
reproduce the judgment passed by Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan
hereinbelow:-
“The accused-petitioner has field this criminal misc. application
under section 482 Cr.P.C read with section 147 of Negotiable
Instruments Act( for short the ‘Act’) with a prayer to review/recall
the order dated 6.10.2016 passed by this Court in SB Criminal
Revision Petition No.1267/2016 in the light of compromise dated
4.11.2016 subsequently entered between the parties and as a
consequences thereof to acquit the accused petitioner for the
offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
Vide order dated 6.10.2016, the aforesaid revision petition filed by
the petitioner was dismissed by this Court while upholding and
affirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed
by the trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court. It was jointly
submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that after the order
dated 6.10.2016 the parties have amicably settled their dispute and
entered into compromise and the amount in the dispute has been
paid by the petitioner to the respondent-complainant.
It was further submitted that although the revision petition has
been dismissed by this Court on merits vide order dated 6.10.2016,
but even then that order can be recalled in the light of provisions of
Section 147 of N.I.Act which permits compound of the offence under
Section 138 of the Act at any stage and the accused can be
acquitted.
In support of their submissions, they relied upon the case of K.
Subramanian Vs. R.Rajathi reported in (2010) 15 SCC 352 and
order dated 7.7.2015 passed by a Single Bench of Hon’ble Gujarat
High Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Application (Recall)
2026:HHC:33007
5No.10232/2015 filed in Special Criminal Application
No.3026/2014.
On consideration of submissions jointly made on behalf of the
respective parties and the material including the compromise
entered into between the parties and the fact that the amount in
dispute has been paid by the accused-petitioner to the respondent-
complainant and the principles of law laid down in the aforesaid
decisions, I find it a fit case in the criminal misc. application is to
be allowed and the order dated 6.10.2016 is to be recalled.
Consequently, the criminal misc. application is allowed and the
order dated 6.10.2016 is recalled and all the orders whereby the
accused-petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence
under Section 138 of N.I. Act are set aside and as a consequence
thereof he is acquitted therefrom.”
9. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Gujarat
High Court, wherein similar application came to be filed for recalling the
judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat. In the aforesaid
judgment, Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, has reiterated that judgment passed
by the High Court affirming the judgment of conviction recorded under
Section 138 of the Act, can be recalled in view of the specific provisions
contained in Section 147 of the Act, which provides for compounding of
offence allegedly committed under Section 138 of the Act.
10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in K. Subramanian Vs. R.Rajathi; (2010)15
Supreme Court Cases 352, also in similar situation ordered for
compounding of offence after recording of conviction by the courts below,
wherein it has been held as under:-
“6. Thereafter a compromise was entered into and the petitioner
claims that he has paid Rs. 4,52,289 to the respondent. In support of
this claim, the petitioner has produced an affidavit sworn by him on
1.12.2008. The petitioner has also produced an affidavit sworn by P.
Kaliappan, Power of attorney holder of R. Rajathi on 1.12.2008
mentioning that he has received a sum of Rs. 4,52,289 due under the
dishonoured cheques in full discharge of the value of cheques and he
is not willing to prosecute the petitioner.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner states at the Bar that the
petitioner was arrested on 30.7.2008 and has undergone the sentence
2026:HHC:33007
6imposed on him by the trial Court and confirmed by the Sessions
Court, the High Court as well as by this Court. The two affidavits
sought to be produced by the petitioner as additional documents
would indicate that indeed a compromise has taken place between the
petitioner and the respondent and the respondent has accepted the
compromise offered by the petitioner pursuant to which he has
received a sum of Rs.4,52,289. In the affidavit filed by the respondent
a prayer is made to permit the petitioner to compound the offence and
close the proceedings.
8. Having regard to the salutary provisions of Section 147 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 320 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, this Court is of the opinion that in view of the
compromise arrived at between the parties, the petitioner should be
permitted to compound the offence committed by him under Section
138 of the Code.”
11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment has categorically
held that in view of the provisions contained under Section 147 of the Act,
read with Section 320 of Cr.P.C, compromise arrived inter se the parties can
be accepted and offence committed under Section 138 of the Act, can be
ordered to be compounded. Hon’ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu V.
Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663, has categorically held that offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be
compounded after recording of conviction, hence this Court while exercising
power under Section 147 of the Act, can proceed to compound the offence
alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and set-aside judgment of
conviction recorded by the Courts below.
12. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove as
well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court holds that
present petition for compounding of offence after dismissal of criminal
revision petition vide judgment dated 20.05.2026, is maintainable and as
such, parties are permitted to get the matter compounded in the light of the
compromise arrived inter se them. Accordingly, judgment(s) of conviction and
2026:HHC:33007
7
sentence recorded by the learned trial Court are quashed and set-aside and
petitioner is acquitted of the charge framed against him.
13. Amount lying deposited by the petitioner-accused with the Registry of
this Court is ordered to be released in favour of complainant by remitting the
same in his bank account, detail whereof, shall be furnished by his counsel
within a period of one week.
14. Since complainant was compelled to engage in unwarranted litigation
with the accused for realization of his own money, accused is directed to pay
a sum of ₹25,000/- as litigation charges in favour of complainant and further
to deposit ₹5000/- with the H.P. State Legal Service Authority as
compounding fee, within a period of four weeks, failing which accused shall
render himself liable for penal consequences as well as Contempt of Court.
The present petition is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid
terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(Sandeep Sharma)
Judge
August 06, 2026
Rajeev Raturi
