IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No.188 of 2026 Date of Decision: 02.04.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Sanjay Panwar ……...Petitioner Versus Aarti Sharma …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Hemant Kumar Thakur, Legal Aid Counsel. For the Respondent: Mr. Harish Kumar, Advocate. _________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Cr.MP(M) No. 2926 of 2025 Having carefully perused the averments contained in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, this Court is convinced and satisfied that delay in maintaining the accompanying criminal revision is neither intentional nor deliberate, rather same has occurred on account of the circumstances, which were completely beyond the control of the applicant-petitioner and as such, delay in filing the accompanying criminal revision, which in my considered view has been sufficiently explained, is condoned. The application stands disposed of. Petition be registered. Cr. Revision No.188 of 2026 2. Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, lays challenge to judgment dated 12.08.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge- II, Solan, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No.64 of 2023, affirming the judgment of 2 conviction dated 27.03.2023 and order of sentence dated 28.03.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.1, Solan, District Solan, H.P., in Criminal complaint No.344/3 of 2017, whereby learned Court below, while holding the petitioner-accused (hereinafter ‘accused’) guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘Act’) convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,50,000/- to the respondent- complainant (hereinafter ‘complainant’). 3. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record are that complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act in the competent court of law, alleging therein that accused with a view to discharge his lawful liability issued cheque bearing No.278674 dated 11.08.2017 amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of the complainant, however, the same was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the bank account of the accused. Since accused failed to make the payment good within the time stipulated in the legal notice, complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act before the competent Court of law. 4. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment dated 27.03.2023 and order dated 28.03.2023, held the accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as per the description given hereinabove. 3 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Court below, accused preferred an appeal in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Solan, H.P., which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 12.08.2025, as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, accused has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, seeking therein for his acquittal after setting aside the judgments of conviction recorded by the courts below. 6. Today, during proceedings of the case, learned counsel for the parties apprised this Court that during pendency of the appeal parties have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them, whereby accused has agreed to pay entire amount of compensation awarded by the learned Court below and sum of Rs.1,00,000/- lying deposited with the learned trial Court has been agreed to be released in favour of the complainant. 7. While making reference to the compromise arrived inter se parties, Mr. Hemant Kumar Thakur, learned Legal Aid counsel for the accused, states that since parties have already compromised the matter and accused has no objection in case, amount lying deposited with the learned trial Court is ordered to be released in favour of the complainant, this Court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, may proceed to compound the offence and acquit the accused from the charge framed against him. 8. Mr. Harish Kumar, Advocate, while putting in appearance on behalf of complainant, who is present in Court, states that in case sum of 4 Rs.1,00,000/- lying deposited with the learned trial Court is ordered to be released in favour of complainant, he shall have no objection in compounding the offence. Complainant states on oath that she of her volition and without any external pressure, has entered into compromise with the accused. She states that in case sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, stated to be lying deposited with the learned trial Court, is ordered to be released in her favour, she shall have no objection in compounding the offence. Her statement is taken on record. 9. Since parties have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them, as has been taken note hereinabove, coupled with the fact that complainant has no objection in compounding the offence, in the event of her being released the amount lying deposited with the learned trial Court, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the accused for compounding the 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 discussion made hereinabove as well as law taken into consideration, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction dated 12.08.2025 & 27.03.2023 and order of sentence dated 28.03.2023, passed by the learned Courts below are quashed and set-aside and the accused is acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 138 of the Act. Interim order, if 5 any, is vacated. Bail bonds, if any, are discharged. The petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any. 11. Since complainant was compelled to engage in unwarranted litigation with the accused for realization of his own amount, accused is directed to deposit 1% of the cheque amount with the HP State Legal Service Authority as compounding fee within a period of six weeks, failing which, he shall render himself liable for penal consequences as well as contempt of Court. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge April 02, 2026 (sunil)