1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 388 of 2023 Decided on : 8.4.2025 Sharief Mohammad …Petitioner Versus H.P. Gramin Bank …Respondent ___________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________ For the Petitioner : Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. K.B.Khajuria, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) Cr. M.P. No. 971 of 2025 For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and order dated 21.3.2025 is recalled. The application is, thus, disposed of. Cr. Revision No. 388 of 2023 2. Petitioner Sharief Mohammad has filed the present petition, against the judgment dated 30.5.2023, passed by the Court of learned Sessions 2 Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Court’), in Criminal Appeal No. 2/10 of 2023, titled as, ‘Sharief Mohammad versus Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank’. 3. By way of judgment dated 30.5.2023, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the aforesaid appeal, which was preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 22.3.2022 and order of sentence dated 8.7.2022, passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in Criminal Case No. 66-3 of 2013, titled as, ‘Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank versus Sharief Mohammad’. 4. By way of judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as referred to above, the learned trial Court has convicted the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’) for the commission of offence, punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the N.I. Act’) and sentenced him to undergo simple 3 imprisonment, for a period of six months and to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,90,000/- to the complainant. 5. During the pendency of the revision petition, before this Court, as per the stand taken by the parties, the matter has been compromised between the parties. This fact has been demonstrated from Cr.M.P. No. 1669 of 2024, which has been moved by learned counsel for the petitioner, before this Court, in which, he has prayed that permission to compound the offence may kindly be accorded. 6. The petitioner has appeared before this Court today and stated on oath that the matter has been settled with the respondent-Bank, with regard to cheque No. 345721 dated 3.6.2013, for a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/-, drawn on Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Branch Office Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. 7. The learned counsel for respondent/complainant has made statement, without oath, acknowledging the factual position, as asserted by the petitioner, in his statement. Lastly, he has 4 stated that he has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed. 8. Keeping in view the fact that the parties to the lis have compromised the matter, the present petition is allowed, by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, referred to above, passed by the learned trial Court, and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court, and accused is acquitted from the offence, punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, subject to payment of 10% of the cheque amount, as compounding fee. 50% of the compounding fee shall be deposited by the accused with the Member Secretary, H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Shimla, and remaining 50% of the amount shall be deposited by him with the H.P. High Court Staff Welfare Organization, Shimla, within six weeks, from today. 9. It is further clarified that in case of failure to deposit the compounding fee, within the prescribed period, the revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed and judgment of conviction and order 5 of sentence, shall revive automatically, and the applicant shall surrender before the learned trial Court to serve out the substantive sentence, imposed by the learned trial Court. 10. Accordingly, the present Revision Petition, as well as, Cr. M.P. No. 1669 of 2024, are allowed in the aforesaid terms. The bail bonds furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. (Virender Singh) Judge April 8, 2025 (Kalpana)