IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 208 of 2026 Date of Decision: 09.04.2026 _______________________________________________________ Hans Raj …….Petitioner Versus Radhey Shyam (deceased) through LRs … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. H.S. Rana, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Upinder Kumar, Advocate. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Cr.MP(M) No.1021 of 2025 By way of instant application, prayer has been made on behalf of the applicant/petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the accompanying 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 is convinced and satisfied that delay in maintaining the accompanying petition is neither intentional nor deliberate, rather same has occurred on the account of the circumstances, which were completely beyond the control of the applicant/petitioner and as such, delay of 19 days in filing the petition, which in my considered view has been sufficiently 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 explained, is condoned. The petition be registered. The application stands disposed of Cr. Revision No.208 of 2026 3. Instant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, lays challenge to judgment dated 02.08.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh in Cr. Appeal No. 52 of 2022, affirming the judgment of conviction dated 28.09.2022 and order of sentence dated 01.10.2022 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, in criminal case No.170/3 of 2018/22/3 of 2013, titled as Radhe Shyam versus Hans Raj, whereby learned trial Court, while holding the petitioner-accused (hereinafter, ‘accused’) guilty of having committed offence punishable under S. 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 compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,30,000/- to the respondent/ complainant. 4. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that the respondent-complainant instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act in the competent Court of law, alleging therein that cheque bearing No.785378, dated 22.08.2012, amounting 3 to Rs. 4, 70, 000/- , having been issued by the petitioner -accused towards discharge of his lawful liability was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the account of the accused. Since, despite having received legal notice, accused failed to make the payment good well within stipulated time, complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act in the competent Court of law, which subsequently, on the basis of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, held the accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under S. 138 of Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as per description given herein above. 5. Though, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court, accused preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P, but same was dismissed vide judgment dated 02.08.2024. In the aforesaid background, petitioner-accused has approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for his acquittal after setting aside judgments of conviction and order of sentence passed by both the learned Courts below. 6. Before the case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merit, petitioner has entered into the compromise with the 4 respondents, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them. 7. Today, during the proceedings of the case, learned counsel representing the petitioner states that the petitioner has entered into the compromise with the respondents, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably. He states that since entire amount of the compensation has been paid to the respondents, this Court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, may proceed to compound the offence. 8. Mr. Upinder Kumar, learned counsel representing respondents, while fairly acknowledging factum with regard to compromise arrived interse parties, states that since entire compensation amount has been received by the respondents, this Court may allow the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner-accused for compounding of the offence. 9. Though, no application under Section 147 of the Act has been filed by the petitioner for compounding the offence, however, this Court has sufficient power to compound the offence under Section 147 of the Act, especially when the complainant is ready and willing for the same, as has been fairly stated by the learned counsel for respondents/complainant. 5 10. Having taken note of the fact that entire amount of compensation has been paid to the respondents and respondents have 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. 11. 11. Consequently, in view of the above, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and order of sentence passed by the courts below are set-aside and the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 138 of the Act. Bail bonds, if any, are discharged. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge April 09, 2026 (shankar)