2026:HHC:24723 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No.540 of 2025 Date of Decision: 24.6.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Dr. Rakesh Priya Ranjan ……...Petitioner Versus The Kangra Central Co-operative Bank Ltd ….….Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Arush Matlotia, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. I.S. Chandel, Advocate vice Mr. S.S. Rathore, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Instant criminal revision petition, lays challenge to judgment dated 16.7.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 7- K/X/2025, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.1.2025, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kangra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh in complaint No. 193-III/2021 (Reg. No. 182/2021), 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. 2,50,000/- to the complainant. 2026:HHC:24723 2 2. 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. 1,50,000/- 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. 3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 20.1.2025 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. 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 first appellate court, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 16.7.2025, 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 2026:HHC:24723 3 Court by way of instant proceedings, seeking therein his acquittal after setting aside the judgments of conviction recorded by the courts below. 5. Before the case at hand could be heard and decided on merit, petitioner has entered into compromise with the respondent/complainant. Mr. Arush Matlotia, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused, states that since entire amount stands deposited with the learned trial Court, same can be ordered to be released in favour of the complainant and as such, this Court while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, can proceed to compound the offence and acquit the accused. 6. Mr. I. S. Chandel, Advocate appearing on the instructions of Mr. S.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the respondent-complainant, while acknowledging the factum of compromise, states that in case amount lying deposited with the learned trial Court is ordered to be released in favour of the complainant, he shall have no objection in compounding the offence. He further submits that since respondent-complainant was unnecessarily dragged into litigation for realization of his own money, this Court may also award some litigation cost. 7. 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 2026:HHC:24723 4 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. 8. 8. Consequently, in view of the above, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and sentence dated 16.7.2025 and 20.1.2025, 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 its own money, this court deems it fit to direct the accused to pay sum of Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost, to the respondent- complainant, payable within four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Apart from above, petitioner shall also be liable to pay 5,000/- as compounding fee with the Himachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, within aforesaid period. It is made clear that in case, needful, including depositing of demand draft, is not done within the time stipulated by this court, accused besides rendering himself liable for penal consequences would also invite 2026:HHC:24723 5 contempt proceedings. Learned trial court below is directed to release the amount deposited by the petitioner-accused in favour of the respondent- complainant, by remitting the same in his saving bank account, detail whereof shall be furnished within one week. The petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any. 9. List for compliance on 22.8.2026. June 24, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge