IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 350 of 2026 Date of Decision: 18.06.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Raju ……...Petitioner Versus Surender Singh & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rohan 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) Cr.MP(M) No.1055 of 2026 By way of instant application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, prayer has been made on behalf of the applicant/ petitioner for condonation of delay in maintaining the accompanying criminal revision petition, which is barred by limitation. 2. Having carefully perused the averments contained in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, this Court finds no impediment in accepting the prayer, especially when delay caused in maintaining accompanying criminal revision petition does not appear to be intentional or willful, rather same has occurred on account of circumstances, which were completely beyond the control of the applicant/petitioner, as such, the same deserves to be condoned. 2 3. In view of above, delay, which has been otherwise sufficiently explained is condoned. The application is disposed of. Cr. Revision No. 350 of 2026 4. By way of instant petition filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, lays challenge to judgment dated 02.08.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.42 of 2024, affirming the judgment of conviction dated 28.09.2023 and order of sentence dated 27.02.2024, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in Cr. Complaint No.485 of 2019, whereby learned trial Court, 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 six months and pay fine to the tune of Rs.1,60,000/- to respondent No.1-complainant (hereinafter, ‘complainant’). 5. 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 bearing No.124797 dated 15.01.2019 amounting to Rs.1,44,000/- in favour of the complainant, however, the same were 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 3 proceedings under Section 138 of the Act before the competent Court of law. 6. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/ order dated 28.09.2023/27.02.2024, 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. 7. 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, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 02.08.2024, 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 for his acquittal after setting aside the judgments of conviction recorded by the courts below. 8. Before case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merit, parties have entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them. 9. Today during proceedings of the case, learned counsel for the accused, on instructions, states before this Court that accused has paid sum of Rs.2,20,000/- to the complainant as full and final settlement. He states that on account of aforesaid amicable settlement arrived inter se parties, this Court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, 4 may proceed to compound the offence and acquit the accused from the charges framed against him. 10. Pursuant to order passed by this Court, complainant has come present in person and has been duly identified by Mr. Rohan Thakur, Advocate. He states that he, of his own volition and without any external pressure, has entered into compromise with the accused. He states that since he has already received sum of Rs.2,20,000/- as full and final settlement, 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 complainant is taken on record. 11. 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, 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. 12. 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 dated 02.08.2024 & 28.09.2023 and order of sentence dated 27.02.2024, passed by the learned Courts below are quashed and set-aside and the accused is acquitted of the 5 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. 13. Since the accused is behind bars, Registry is directed to prepare the release warrants and send the same to the concerned Superintendent of Jail, forthwith through email or fax, enabling the aforesaid authority to release the accused immediately, subject to verification that he is not required in any other case. Since complainant was compelled to engage in unwarranted litigation with the accused for realization of his own amount, accused is directed to deposit Rs.5,000/- with the HP State Legal Service Authority as compounding fee within a period of six weeks, failing which, he shall render himself liable for penal consequences as well as contempt of court. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge June 18, 2026 (sunil) SUNIL KUMAR Digitally signed by SUNIL KUMAR Date: 2026.06.19 10:43:47 +0530