IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No.256 of 2023 Date of Decision: 30.3.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Naresh Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus Punjab National Bank …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Gobind Korla, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Instant criminal revision petition, lays challenge to judgment dated 5.4.2023, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Kullu, in Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 2022, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8.9.2022, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Manali, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, in CIS Filing No. 3149 of 2015, whereby the learned trial Court while holding the petitioner-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 one year and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- to the complainant. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that respondent-complainant instituted a complaint under Section 138 of 2 the Act, in the court of competent court of law, alleging therein that accused with a view to discharge his liability issued cheque amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- 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. 3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 8.9.2022 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 herein above. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by the court below, accused preferred an appeal in the court of learned first appellate court, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 5.4.2023, as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, present petitioner-accused 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. 3 5. Vide order dated 16.5.2023, this Court suspended the substantive sentence imposed by the court below subject to petitioner’s depositing 50% of the compensation amount and furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- within one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court within six weeks, however, fact remains that aforesaid order was never complied with and as such, this Court vacated the interim protected granted vide order dated 16.5.2023, reserving liberty to the non-applicant/respondent/bank to get the judgment of learned trial Court executed in accordance with law. 6. Before case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merits, accused has amicably settled the matter with the complainant, whereby he has paid the entire amount of compensation to the complainant. In this regard, an application bearing CrMP No. 4315 of 2024 under Section 147 of the Act, praying therein to compound the offence, has also been filed. It is specifically averred in the afore application that applicant/accused has deposited sum of Rs. 3,48,358/-before the learned trial Court on 19.12.2022 and thereafter, paid sum of Rs. 3.00 lakh on 30.3.2024. Accused besides depositing afore amount has also made payments of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs.2,50,000/- (Annexure A-1 Colly.). A day before yesterday, petitioner also deposited Rs.50,000/- in the bank as is evident from the receipt placed on record. 4 7. Mr. Divya Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused stated that since petitioner has already deposited/agreed to pay the entire amount of compensation, this Court while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, can compound the offence and acquit the accused. He also submitted that amount lying deposited before the learned trial court may be released in favour of the respondent/bank. 8. Mr. Gobind Korla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-complainant, stated that petitioner has deposited sum of Rs. 3,48,385/- before the learned trial Court on 19.12.2022, but sum of Rs. 3.00 lakh deposited on 30.3.2024, was not against the cheque amount, rather same was deposited under OTS scheme to settle the loan. He also did not dispute factum with regard to receipt of further payment of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 2,50,000/-. Learned counsel further submitted that since respondent-complainant was unnecessarily dragged into litigation for realization of its own money, this Court may also award some litigation cost. Mr. Korla, has also placed on record compromise deed 7.10.2024, issued under the signature of Circle Sastra Head, Circle Sastra Centre Mandi, to state that request for OTS of loan account of the petitioner was approved for sum of Rs. 26.00 lakh, but petitioner only deposited Rs.6.5 lakh till date. He stated that in case afore amount paid under OTS is considered to be paid against the cheque in question and thereafter 5 amount lying deposited with the learned trial Court is ordered to be released in his client’s favour, he shall have no objection in compounding the offence. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that since prayer for OTS scheme has been already rejected, amount, if any, deposited under OTS Scheme may be treated to be paid against the cheque in question. He stated that in case amount paid under OTS scheme is taken into consideration, petitioner accused can be said to have made the entire payment of compensation awarded by the court below. 10. Since amount of Rs. 6.5 lakh has been already paid by the petitioner to the respondent-Bank coupled with the fact that sum of Rs. 3,48,358/- which is stated to be lying deposited in the learned trial Court, has been agreed to be released in favour of the respondent/bank and sum of Rs. 50,000-/- has been deposited two days prior to passing of the instant order, 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 power under Section 147 of the Act, can proceed to compound the offence even after recording of conviction by the courts below. 6 11. Consequently, in view of the above, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and sentence dated 8.9.2022 and 5.4.2023, 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, discharged. Since respondent-complainant was unnecessarily compelled to institute the legal proceedings against the accused that too for realization of its own money, this court deems it fit to direct the accused to pay sum of Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost, to the respondent-complainant, payable within four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Apart from above, petitioner shall also be liable to pay 5,000/- as compounding fee with the Himachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, within aforesaid period. It is made clear that in case, needful is not done within the time stipulated by this court, accused besides rendering himself liable for penal consequences would also invite contempt proceedings. Learned trial court below is directed to release the amount, on filing appropriate application, detailing therein saving bank account details of respondent-complainant. The petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any. March 30, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge