IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No.134 of 2026 Date of Decision: 26.05.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Nidhi Sharma ……...Petitioner Versus Punjab National Bank …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? __________________________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. P.D. Nanda, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Jagjeet Singh Bagga, Advocate. _________________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of BNSS, 2023, lays challenge to judgment dated 13.01.2026, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dehra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.8-G/IV/2025, titled Nidhi Sharma Vs. Punjab National Bank, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.05.2025/06.05.2025, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, in case No.267-III/2018, whereby the learned trial Court while holding the petitioner-accused (hereinafter, ‘accused’) guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short the “Act"), convicted and sentenced her to 2 undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.21,56,972/- to the complainant. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that respondent-complainant (hereinafter, ‘complainant’) instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act, in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, alleging therein that accused with a view to discharge her liability issued Cheque for a sum of Rs.10,78,486/-, but fact remains that aforesaid Cheque on its presentation, was dishonoured. Since petitioner-accused failed to make the payment good within the time stipulated in the legal notice, respondent/complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings before the competent Court of law under Section 138 of the Act. 3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 02.05.2025/06.05.2025, held the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced her, as per the description given hereinabove. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by the Court below, accused preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dehra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 3 13.01.2026, as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, present petitioner-accused has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, seeking therein her acquittal after setting aside the judgments of conviction recorded by the Courts below. 5. Before case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merits, parties have entered into compromise, whereby petitioner/accused has agreed to pay the amount in question to the respondent/complainant. 6. Today, during the proceedings of the case, learned counsel representing the petitioner/accused apprised this Court that case of the petitioner has been considered by the respondent/Bank under One Time Settlement Scheme, which fact has been duly acknowledged by learned counsel representing the respondent/complainant. Learned counsel representing the petitioner/accused states that since petitioner has paid the amount in question to the respondent/complainant under One time Settlement Scheme, this Court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act may proceed to compound the offence. He further states that since entire amount in dispute has been already deposited with the complainant- Bank, this Court may order release of amount lying deposited with the learned trial Court in favour of petitioner-accused. 4 7. Mr. Jagjeet Singh Bagga, learned counsel representing the respondent/Bank, states that he has instructions to depose on behalf of complainant-Bank. He states that complainant-Bank has compromised the matter with the petitioner-accused and as per compromise, amount in question stands paid to the Bank by the petitioner under the One Time Settlement Scheme and as such, complainant-Bank shall have no objection in case the judgments of conviction passed by the learned Courts below are quashed and set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge framed against her. He states that since complainant-Bank has already compromised the matter with the petitioner-accused under OTS Scheme, which has been already deposited with it, complainant-Bank has no objection in case amount lying deposited with the learned trial Court is ordered to be released in favour of petitioner-accused. However, some amount on account of litigation charges may be awarded in favour of complainant, because it was unnecessarily dragged into litigation for realization of its own money. His statement is taken on record. 8. Having taken note of the fact that parties have compromised the matter, whereby petitioner/accused has paid amount in question under One Time Settlement Scheme, coupled with the fact that respondent/complainant has no objection in compounding the offence, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the 5 petitioner for compounding of 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. 9. Consequently, in view of the above, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and sentence dated 13.01.2026 and 02.05.2025/06.05.2025, passed by the Courts below are quashed and set aside and the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charge framed against her under Section 138 of the Act. Interim order, if any, is vacated. Bail bonds, if any, are discharged. Since amount in question has been already deposited with the complainant-Bank, coupled with the fact that complainant-Bank has no objection in releasing the amount lying deposited with the learned trial Court in favour of petitioner-accused, it is ordered that amount lying deposited with the learned trial Court be released in favour of petitioner-accused, by remitting the same in her saving bank account, detail whereof shall be furnished by her counsel within one week. 10. Since complainant-Bank was compelled to engage in unwarranted litigation with the petitioner/accused for realization of its own 6 money, petitioner-accused is directed to deposit sum of Rs.5,000/- with the H.P. State Legal Service Authority as compounding fee, within a period of eight weeks, failing which petitioner/accused shall render herself liable for penal consequences as well as Contempt of Court. List for compliance on 16.07.2026. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 26, 2026 (Rajeev Raturi)