1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 174 of 2025 Decided on : 13.5.2025 Surender Kumar …Petitioner Versus State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank & anr. …Respondents ___________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________ For the Petitioner : Mr. Surila Sangam, Advocate vice Mr. Inder Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Narender Singh Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Varun Chandel, Addl. A.G., for respondent No. 2. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner Surender Kumar has filed the present petition, against the judgment dated 8.1.2025, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, Camp at Karsog, 2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Court’), in Criminal Appeal No. 251 of 2024, titled as, ‘Surender Kumar vs. State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank & anr.’ 2. By way of judgment dated 8.1.2025, learned Appellate Court has dismissed the aforesaid appeal. 3. The said appeal was preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 2.5.2024, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in case No. 74 of 2022, titled as, ‘H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Vs. Surender Kumar.’ 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. 3 Act’) and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment, for a period of two months and to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/- 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 is demonstrated from Cr. M.P. No. 1829 of 2025, 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 made statement, on oath, that the matter has been settled with the respondent- Bank, with regard to cheque No. 795742, dated 9.2.2022, for a sum of Rs. 1,69,000/-, and in view of the settlement, the respondent-Bank has issued the Vacation of Charge certificate, Ext. PA, in favour of the petitioner. 7. Petitioner has further deposed that he has deposited a sum of Rs. 45,000/- before the learned 4 trial Court. He has prayed that the aforesaid amount be released in his favour. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has made statement, without oath, acknowledging the factual position, as asserted by the petitioner, in his statement. Lastly, he has stated that he has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed and the amount deposited by the petitioner, before the learned trial Court, is released in favour of the petitioner. 9. Keeping in view the fact that the parties to the lis have compromised the matter, Cr.M.P. No. 1829 of 2025 is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to compound the offence. 10. In view of 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. 5 Act, subject to payment of 4% 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 eight weeks, from today. 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 applicant 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. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. (Virender Singh) Judge May 13, 2025 (Kalpana) 6