2026:HHC:29482 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 435 of 2026 Date of Decision: 20.7.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Nayaz Mohd. ……...Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh State Cooperative Agricultural Rural Development Bank ….….Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Servedhaman Rathore For the Respondent: Mr. Narender Thakur, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Cr.MP(M) No.1312 of 2026 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. 435 of 2026 2. Be registered. 3. Instant criminal revision petition, lays challenge to judgment dated 11.2.2026, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, District 2026:HHC:29482 2 Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.66-N/10 of 2024, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.6.2024, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nahan, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Complaint No. 391/3 of 2022, 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 one year and pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- 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 competent court of law, alleging therein that accused with a view to discharge his liability issued cheque amounting to Rs.2,30,462/-, in favour of the respondent/complainant, but fact remains that aforesaid cheque on its presentation to the bank concerned, 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 15.6.2024 held the 2026:HHC:29482 3 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. 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 11.2.2026, 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. Mr. Servedaman Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner- accused, states that pursuant to the compromise arrived inter-se parties, petitioner has paid the entire compensation amount to the complainant. He submits that in view of the above, this Court while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, may proceed to compound the offence and acquit the accused. 8. While acknowledging factum with regard to compromise, Mr. Narender Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- complainant, states that his client has already received the entire amount of compensation and offence can be ordered to be compounded. He further 2026:HHC:29482 4 submits that since respondent-complainant was unnecessarily dragged into litigation for realization of its own money, this Court may also award some litigation cost. 9. 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. 10. 10. Consequently, in view of the above, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and sentence dated 15.6.2024 and 11.2.2026, 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. 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 2026:HHC:29482 5 accused to pay sum of Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost, to the respondent- 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. The petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any. 11. List for compliance on 2.9.2026. July 20, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge