2026:HHC:33285 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No.383 of 2026 Date of Decision: 10.08.2026 _______________________________________________________ Meera Devi …….Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank … Respondent _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. K. B. Khajuria, Advocate. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Instant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 read with 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, lays challenge to judgment dated 07.05.2026 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dehra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.05-G/IX/2026, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.12.2025/09.01.2026, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Dehra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh in case registration No.25 of 2023(Filing No.333 of 2023), titled Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank Bharoli vs. Meera Devi, whereby learned trial Court, 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 her to undergo simple 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:33285 imprisonment for a period of six months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,75,000/- to the respondent-complainant (hereinafter, ‘complainant’). 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record, are that the respondent-complainant-bank instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act in the competent Court of law, alleging therein that cheque bearing No.261063, dated 02.01.2023, amounting to Rs. 2, 76,000/- drawn at Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Bharoli, having been issued by the petitioner-accused towards discharge of her lawful liability was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the bank account of the accused. Since, despite having received legal notice, accused failed to make the payment good well within stipulated time, complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act in the competent Court of law, which subsequently on the basis of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, held accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under S. 138 of Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced her, as per description given herein above. 3. Though, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court, accused preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dehra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, but same was dismissed vide judgment dated 07.05.2026. In the 3 2026:HHC:33285 aforesaid background, petitioner-accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for her acquittal after setting aside judgments of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court as well as Appellate Court. 4. Vide order dated 29.06.2026, this Court suspended the substantive sentence imposed upon the accused by learned trial Court, subject to the petitioner-accused depositing 50% of the total compensation amount and furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 20,000/-, with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court within a period of four weeks. Though, aforesaid order has been duly complied with. 5. Before the case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merit, petitioner has entered into the compromise with the respondent-Complainant, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them. On account of the compromise, petitioner filed an application under Section 147 of the Act, praying therein for compounding of the offence. 6. Today, during the proceedings of the case, learned counsel representing the petitioner states that the petitioner has entered into the compromise with the respondent-complainant-bank. He states that sum of Rs. 1, 87,500/- is lying deposited with the learned trial Court, whereas towards the remaining amount, petitioner- accused has prepared Demand Draft No.000073, dated 24.07.2026, amounting to Rs. 1, 87,500/- in the name of Registrar General, 4 2026:HHC:33285 Himachal Pradesh High Court, Shimla, which shall be deposited in the Registry of this Court during the course of the day and as such, this Court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, may proceed to compound the offence and acquit the accused of charge framed against her under Section 138 of the Act. 7. Mr. K. B. Khajuria, learned counsel representing the respondent-complainant-bank submits that respondent-complainant- bank shall have no objection in compounding the offence in case, amount lying deposited with the learned trial Court as well as Registry of this Court is ordered to be released in favour of the respondent/bank. 8. Having taken note of the fact that entire amount of compensation has been paid to the respondent-complainant/bank and respondent-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 5 2026:HHC:33285 and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court as well as Appellate Court are set-aside and the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charge framed against her under Section 138 of the Act. Bail bonds, if any, are discharged. Interim order, if any, is vacated. 10. Since respondent-complainant-bank was compelled to engage in unwarranted litigation with the accused for realization of its own amount, petitioner-accused is directed to pay sum of Rs. 15,000/- as litigation charges to the respondent-complainant and deposit Rs. 5000/- with the H.P. State Legal Service Authority as compounding fee within a period of six weeks, failing which, she shall render herself liable for penal consequences as well as contempt of the Court. 11. Learned trial Court as well as Registry of this Court is directed to release the amount lying deposited with it in favour of the respondent-complainant-bank, by remitting the same in its saving bank account, details whereof shall be furnished by learned counsel for the respondent-complainant-bank within a period of one week. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 10,2026 (shankar)