2026:HHC:26040 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No.390 of 2026 Date of Decision: 02.07.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Bhupender ……...Petitioner Versus Jogindra Central Cooperative Bank …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Rohan Tomar, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate. _________________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 438 & 442 of the BNSS, lays challenge to judgment dated 28.03.2026, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Solan, H.P., Camp at Arki, in Criminal Appeal No.3-AK/10 of 2025, titled Bhupender Vs. Jogindra Central Cooperative Bank, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.01.2025/13.01.2025, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Arki, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Case No.36/3 of 2016, whereby the learned trial Court while holding the petitioner-accused (hereinafter, ‘accused’) guilty of having committed offence punishable u nder Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short the ‘Act’), convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 2026:HHC:26040 -2- a period of one month and pay compensation to the tune of ₹2,00,000/- 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 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Arki, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, alleging therein that accused with a view to discharge his liability issued Cheque for a sum of Rs.1,30,000/-, 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 02.01.2025/13.01.2025, 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 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-II, Solan, H.P., Camp at Arki, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 28.03.2026, as a 2026:HHC:26040 -3- consequence of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, 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. 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 entire loan amount to the complainant-Bank. 6. Today, during the proceedings of the case, learned counsel representing the petitioner/accused apprised this Court that entire loan amount has been already deposited with the complainant-Bank, which fact has been duly acknowledged by learned counsel representing the complainant-Bank. Learned counsel representing the petitioner/accused states that since petitioner has paid entire loan amount to the respondent- Bank, this Court while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act may proceed to compound the offence. 7. Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate, while putting in appearance on behalf of complainant-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 the compromise, complainant-Bank has received the entire loan amount, as full 2026:HHC:26040 -4- and final settlement and as such, complainant shall have no objection in case judgments of conviction and order of sentence recorded by both the learned Courts below are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 138 of the Act. His statement is taken on record. 8. His statement is taken on record. 8. Having taken note of the fact that parties have compromised the matter, whereby petitioner/accused has paid entire loan amount to the complainant-Bank, coupled with the fact that complainant-Bank 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. 9. Consequently, in view of the above, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and sentence dated 28.03.2026 and 02.01.2025/13.01.2025, passed by the 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. 2026:HHC:26040 -5- 10. Since respondent/complainant was compelled to engage in unwarranted litigation with the petitioner/accused for realization of its own money, petitioner-accused is directed to pay a sum of ₹5000/- with the H.P. State Legal Service Authority as compounding fee, within a period of six weeks, failing which petitioner/accused shall render himself for penal consequences as well as Contempt of Court. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 02, 2026 (Rajeev Raturi)