IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No.629 of 2024 Date of Decision: 29.04.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Subhash Chand ……...Petitioner Versus Rajo …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Goldy Kumar, Advocate. _________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) [ Though through instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, challenge has been laid to judgment dated 01.07.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No.6-D/X/2023, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.12.2022 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P., in Criminal Complaint No.86-III/2018, whereby court below, while holding the petitioner-accused (in short “accused”) guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short ‘Act’) convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.29,650/- to the complainant (in short ‘complainant’) , however, after arguing for a while, learned counsel for the complainant, on instructions of the complainant, seeks permission to withdraw the Criminal Complaint No.86-III/2018 2 having been filed by him under Section 138 of the Act with liberty to file Civil suit for recovery of his amount. Ordered accordingly. 2. As a consequence of withdrawal of complaint detailed hereinabove, judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.12.2022 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P., which was further affirmed by learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. vide judgment dated 01.07.2024 in Criminal Appeal No.6-D/X/2023 are 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. Needless to say, complainant, at the time of filing civil suit, if any, for recovery of amount, shall be entitled to take refuge under Section 14 of Limitation Act. 3. Amount, if any, lying deposited by the accused with the Registry of this court is ordered to be released in favour of the accused by remitting the same in his saving bank account, detail whereof, shall be furnished within a period of one week. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge April 29, 2026 (sunil)