2026:HHC:29482 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No.436 of 2026 Date of Decision: 20.7.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Ashwani Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus Madan Thakur ….….Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Anirudh RH Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Cr.MP(M) No.1319 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. 436 of 2026 2. Be registered. 3. Instant criminal revision petition, lays challenge to judgment dated 5.1.2026, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.93-S/10 of 2024, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.9.2024, passed by 2026:HHC:29482 2 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Case No. 537/3 of 2021/16, 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 six months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 95,000/- 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. 70,000/-, in favour of the respondent/complainant, but fact remains that same was dishonoured on its presentation to the bank concerned, 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 30.9.2024 held the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence under Section 138 of 2026:HHC:29482 3 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 before the learned first appellate court, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 5.1.2026, 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. Anirudh RH Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner- accused, states that pursuant to the compromise arrived inter-se parties, son of the petitioner has paid sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant, whereas sum of Rs. 30,000/-shall be paid by him within four weeks, as such, 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. Rakesh Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- complainant, states that parties have settled their dispute for Rs. 1,30,000/-, out of which, his client has already received sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- 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 his 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. Consequently, in view of the above, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and sentence dated 30.9.2024 and 5.1.2026, 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 his 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 four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Apart from above, petitioner shall also be liable to deposit 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. It is made clear that in case, petitioner fails to pay the remaining amount, present petition shall automatically revive. 11. Since petitioner-accused is lodged at District Jail Solan, Himachal Pradesh, release warrants be prepared accordingly and sent through Fax/Email/FASTER to the concerned Superintendent of Jail, immediately. The petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any. 12. The parties are permitted to produce copy of order downloaded from the High Court website before the officer concerned, however, if required, passing of order can be verified from the High Court website or otherwise. 13. List for compliance on 27.8.2026. July 20, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge Digitally signed by MANJIT KUMAR DN: C=IN, CN=MANJIT KUMAR, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, ST=Himachal Pradesh, postalCode=171001, serialNumber= ffb8dd101351467ce316ecea59f43f4b5124f5614 b850ab4d445e0686eaebf01, telephoneNumber= a63e8ec21d3802fe79457461dade5c7de95eed7 2063c34319f008e941fc48e93 Reason: I am the author of this document Location: 12345678 Date: 2026.07.21 12:29:51+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.1.1 MANJIT KUMAR