IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No.6 of 2026 Date of Decision: 25.08.2026 _______________________________________________________ Labh Singh …….Petitioner Versus State Bank of India … Respondent _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Guna Nand Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Arvind Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Digvijay Singh Thakur, Advocate. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Instant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, lays challenge to judgment dated 24.11.2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.82 of 2023, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.06.2022/08.12.2022, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Karsog, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in case Reg. No.124 of 2018, titled as State Bank of India vs. Labh Singh, 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 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,70,000/- 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 instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act in the competent Court of law, alleging therein that cheque bearing No.810342, dated 18.05.2018, amounting to Rs. 1, 43,000/-, having been issued by the petitioner-accused towards discharge of his 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 him, 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-1, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, but same was dismissed vide judgment dated 24.11.2025. In the 3 aforesaid background, petitioner-accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for his 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 05.01.2026, this Court suspended the substantive sentence imposed upon the accused by learned trial Court, subject to the petitioner-accused depositing 30% of the compensation amount and furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-, with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court within a period of four weeks. Though, aforesaid 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. 6. Today, during the proceedings of the case, learned counsel representing the petitioner states that entire amount of compensation has been deposited with the learned trial Court 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 him under Section 138 of the Act. 7. Mr. Digvijay Singh Thakur, learned counsel representing the respondent-complainant submits that respondent-complainant 4 shall have no objection in compounding the offence in case, amount lying deposited with the learned trial Court is ordered to be released in favour of the respondent-complainant-bank. 8. Having taken note of the fact that entire amount of compensation has been paid to the respondent-complainant and respondent-complainant 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. 9. Consequently, in view of the above, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction 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 him under Section 138 of the Act. Bail bonds, if any, are discharged. Interim order, if any, is vacated. 10. Since respondent-complainant was compelled to engage in unwarranted litigation with the accused for realization of his own amount, petitioner-accused is directed to pay sum of Rs. 15,000/- as 5 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, he shall render himself liable for penal consequences as well as contempt of the Court. 11. Learned trial Court is directed to release the amount lying deposited with it in favour of the respondent-complainant, by remitting the same in its bank account, details whereof shall be furnished by learned counsel for the respondent-complainant within a period of two weeks. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 25,2026 (shankar)