2026:HHC:22480 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No.341 of 2026 Date of Decision: 16.6.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Mohan Lal ……...Petitioner Versus Akash Thakur ….….Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms.Pooja Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr.Karun Negi, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) CrMP No.1046 of 2026 2. For the reasons stated in the application, this Court is convinced and satisfied that delay in maintaining the accompanying criminal revision petition is neither intentional nor willful, rather same has occurred on account of circumstances, which were completely beyond the control of the applicant, as such, delay, which has been sufficiently explained, is condoned. The application is disposed of. Cr.R. No. 341 of 2026 3. Instant criminal revision petition, lays challenge to judgment dated respondent No.3.7.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge-II, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 33—ASJ- II/10 of 2024, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 2026:HHC:22480 2 22.7.2024, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kandaghat, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Case No. 62/3 of 2018, whereby the learned trial Court while holding the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short the “Act"), convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant. 4. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that respondent-complainant instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act, in the court of competent court of law, alleging therein that accused with a view to discharge his liability issued cheque amounting to Rs. 82,696/- but fact remains that aforesaid cheque on its presentation, was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. 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. 5. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 22.7.2024 held the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as per the description given herein above. 2026:HHC:22480 3 6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by the court below, accused preferred an appeal in the court of learned first appellate court, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 3.7.2025, 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 his acquittal after setting aside the judgments of conviction recorded by the courts below. 7. Before the case at hand could be heard and decided on merit, petitioner has entered into compromise with the respondent/complainant and in this regard, petitioner has also filed application under Section 147 of the Act, praying therein for compounding of the offence. 8. Ms. Pooja Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused, states that since respondent/complainant has received the entire amount, this Court while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, can proceed to compound the offence and acquit the accused. 9. Mr. Karun Negi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- complainant, while acknowledging the factum of compromise, states that in view of the receipt of full amount, his client has no objection in compounding the offence. He further submits that since respondent- 2026:HHC:22480 4 complainant was unnecessarily dragged into litigation for realization of his own money, this Court may also award some litigation cost. 10. Having taken note of the fact that entire amount of compensation stands paid to the respondent-complainant and respondent has no objection in compounding the offence, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the 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 by the courts below. 11. 11. Consequently, in view of the above, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and sentence dated 3.7.2025 and 22.7.2024, passed by the learned courts below are quashed and set-aside and the petitioner-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. Since respondent-complainant was unnecessarily compelled to institute legal proceedings against the accused that too for realization of his own money, this court deems it fit to direct the accused to pay sum of Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost, to the respondent- 2026:HHC:22480 5 complainant, payable within six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Apart from above, petitioner shall also be liable to pay sum of Rs.5,000/- as compounding fee with the Himachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, within aforesaid period, failing which, accused besides rendering himself liable for penal consequences would also invite contempt proceedings. 12. Since petitioner-accused is lodged at Model Jail Kanda, release warrants be prepared accordingly and sent through Fax/Email/FASTER to the concerned Superintendent of Jail, immediately. The petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any. 13. The parties are permitted to produce copy of order downloaded from the High Court website before the officer concerned, however, if required, passing of order can be verified from the High Court website or otherwise. 14. List for compliance on 3.8.2026. June 16, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge Digitally signed by MANJIT KUMAR DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone= a63e8ec21d3802fe79457461dade5c7 de95eed72063c34319f008e941fc48e9 3, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER= ffb8dd101351467ce316ecea59f43f4b5 124f5614b850ab4d445e0686eaebf01, CN=MANJIT KUMAR Reason: I am the author of this document Location: Date: 2026.06.16 18:55:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 MANJIT KUMAR