1 2025:HHC:44344 ) 2025:HHC:44344 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 281 of 2014 Decided on : 17.12.2025 Ramesh Chand …Petitioner Versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd. & anr. …Respondents ___________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________ For the Petitioner : Petitioner in person with Mr. Balwant Kukreja and Ms. Drishti Sirswal, Advocates. For the Respondents : Respondent No. 1 in person with Mr. Sanjay Dalmia, Advocate. Mr. Rohit Sharma, Dy. A.G., for respondent-State. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner Ramesh Chand has filed the present petition, against the judgment dated 1.4.2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (II) Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2 2025:HHC:44344 ) Appellate Court’), in Criminal Appeal No. 52-S/10 of 2013/12, titled as, ‘Ramesh Chand versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd.’ 2. By way of judgment dated 1.4.2014, learned Appellate Court has dismissed the aforesaid appeal. 3. The said appeal was preferred against the judgment of conviction, dated 31.7.2012 and order of sentence, dated 31.8.2012, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 3, Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in case No. 61-3 of 2011/10, titled as, ‘LIC Housing Finance Limited versus Ramesh Chand’. 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 2025:HHC:44344 ) imprisonment, for a period of six months and to pay a compensation of Rs. 8,50,000/- to the complainant. 6. 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. 5652 of 2025, which has been moved by learned counsel for the petitioner-accused, before this Court, in which, he has prayed that permission to compound the offence may kindly be accorded. 7. The petitioner-accused has appeared before this Court, today and stated, on oath, that the matter has been settled with the respondent No. 1, with regard to cheque No. 0545306, dated 6.8.2010. He has deposed that now, nothing is due against him. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has made statement without oath that he has instructions to depose, on behalf of respondent No. 1 and acknowledged the factual position, as asserted by the petitioner-accused, in his statement. Lastly, he has 4 2025:HHC:44344 ) stated that respondent No.1 has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed. 9. Keeping in view the fact that the parties to the lis have compromised the matter, Cr.M.P. No. 5652 of 2025 is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to compound the offence. 10. In view of the above, 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 7.5% of the cheque amount, as compounding fee. 50% of the compounding fee shall be deposited by the petitioner/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 Association, within 8 weeks, from today. 5 2025:HHC:44344 ) 11. 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 of sentence, shall revive automatically, and the petitioner shall surrender before the learned trial Court to serve out the substantive sentence, imposed by the learned trial Court. 12. The bail bonds furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. 13. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. (Virender Singh) Judge December 17, 2025 (Kalpana)