IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No.195 of 2026 Date of Decision: 9.4.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Gumu Devi ……...Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh State Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank and Anr. ….….Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Naveen Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Narender Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for respondent No.2/State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Instant criminal revision petition, lays challenge to judgment dated 13.3.2026, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2025, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.1.2025, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Banjar, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Complaint No. 30 of 2023, 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 her to 2 undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,75,000/- to the complainant. 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 her liability issued cheque amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/- 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 18.1.2025 held the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced her 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 13.3.2026, as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the 3 aforesaid background, present petitioner-accused has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, seeking therein her acquittal after setting aside the judgments of conviction recorded by the courts below. 5. Mr. Naveen Kumar Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused, while placing on record copy of demand draft amounting to Rs. 2,75,000/- states that same shall be deposited in the Registry of this Court positively by 10.4.2026 and thereafter, same can be released in favour of the complainant. He states that in view of the afore development, this Court while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, can proceed to compound the offence and acquit the accused. 6. Mr. Narender Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-complainant, states that his client has no objection in compounding the offence in case compensation amount, proposed to be deposited by the petitioner-accused in terms of demand draft, is ordered to be released in his client’s favour. He further submits that since respondent- complainant was unnecessarily dragged into litigation for realization of its own money, this Court may also award some litigation cost. 7. Having taken note of the fact that entire amount of compensation stands paid/agreed to be 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 4 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. 8. Consequently, in view of the above, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and sentence dated 18.1.2025 and 13.3.2026, passed by the courts below are quashed and set- aside and the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charge framed against her 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. 5,000/- 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 herself liable for penal consequences would also invite 5 contempt proceedings. As soon as demand draft amounting to Rs. 2,75,000/- is received by the Registry of this Court pertaining to this case, it is directed to release the same in favour of the complainant on filing appropriate application within one week, providing therein account details of the complainant. The petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any. April 9, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge