IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No.290 of 2025 Date of Decision: 11.03.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Amit Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus The Kangra Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Ms. Aanchal Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Kshitij Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for respondent No.2-State. _________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, lays challenge to judgment dated 30.04.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No.90/2024, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.08.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.3, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, in criminal complaint No.230/2017, whereby learned Court below, while holding the petitioner-accused (hereinafter ‘accused’) guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘Act’) convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and pay 2 compensation to the tune of Rs.3,70,000/- to the respondent-complainant (hereinafter ‘complainant’). 2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record are that complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act in the competent court of law, alleging therein that accused with a view to discharge his lawful liability issued cheque amounting to Rs.2,60,000/- in favour of the complainant, however, the same was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the bank account of the accused. Since accused failed to make the payment good within the time stipulated in the legal notice, complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act before the competent Court of law. 3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 08.08.2024, held the accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as per the description given hereinabove. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Court below, accused preferred an appeal in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, H.P., which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 30.04.2025, as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, 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. During proceedings of the case, learned counsel representing the parties apprised this Court with regard to intention of the parties to settle the matter inter se them and accordingly, this Court referred the matter to Mediation. It is heartening to note that with the sincere efforts put in by learned Mediator, parties have been able to resolve the dispute amicably inter se them. Order dated 21.11.2025 passed by learned Mediator, which is part of the mediation record, reveals that sum of Rs.1,06,000/- has already been deposited with the complainant-bank, which fact has been fairly acknowledged by authorized representative of the bank, who is present in Court. 6. Mr. Susheel Bandhu, (Manager) authorized representative of the complainant bank has come present in person and has been duly identified by Mr. Kshitij Thakur, Advocate. He states on oath that he has instructions to depose on behalf of the complainant-bank. He states that parties have compromised the matter inter se them. He states that sum of Rs.1,06,000/- has already been deposited with the bank and in case, remaining sum of Rs.2,59,000/- lying deposited with the learned trial Court is ordered to be released in favour of the complainant bank, he shall have no objection in compounding the offence and acquitting the accused from the charges framed against him under Section 138 of the Act. Afore statement of the authorized representative of the complainant-bank is taken on record. 7. Since parties have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them, as has been taken note hereinabove, coupled with the fact that complainant has no objection in compounding the offence, in the event of 4 its being released the amount lying deposited with the learned trial Court, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the accused for compounding the 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. 8. 8. Consequently, in view of the discussion made hereinabove as well as law taken into consideration, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and sentence dated 25.11.2023 and 30.04.2025, passed by the learned Courts below 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. 9. Sum of Rs.2,59,000/- deposited by the accused with the learned trial Court is ordered to be released in favour of complainant-bank by remitting the same in its bank account, detail whereof, shall be furnished within a period of one week. 10. Since complainant was compelled to engage in unwarranted litigation with the accused for realization of its own amount, accused is directed to deposit 5% of the cheque amount with the HP State Legal Service Authority as compounding fee within a period of seeks weeks, 5 failing which, he shall himself render himself liable for penal consequences as well as contempt of Court. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge March 11, 2026 (sunil)