IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 178 of 2026 Date of Decision: 09.02.2026 Bhagat Ram ....Petitioner Versus Manohar Lal ....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting. For the petitioner : M/s. Sanjay Prashar & Dimple Sharma, Advocates. For the respondent : Ms. Raksha Verma, Advocate. R omesh Verma ,Judge(Oral) Cr. MP(M) No. 178 of 2026 The present application has been led by the appliant for condonation of delay in ling the present petition. The applicant has submitted in the application that he could not le the petition within the period of limiation due to his ill health and applicant was not aware about the legal proceedings and about the technicalities of procedure. Hence, the application. 2. The present application has not been opposed by the opposite party since the matter stands compromised between them. 3. Consequently, the present application is allowed and delay in ling the revision is ordered to be condoned. 4. The present application stands disposed of. Cr. Revision No.____ of 2025 Be registered. 5. The present revision has been led under Sections 438/442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, against the judgment dated 12.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2024, whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.06.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karsog, District Mandi, H.P., in Complaint No. 57 of 2019 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (for short ‘Act’) titled Manohar Lal vs. Bhagat Ram, were upheld. 6. The facts of the case are that a complaint was led by the present respondent against the petitioner alleging therein that in the month of February, 2019, the present petitioner approached herein the complainant at his residence and informed him that he intended to deposit an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- towards his KCC loan in the bank. The petitioner requested the complainant to lend him a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/-, assuring that the said amount would be returned within a period of 20 days. In discharge of the said liability, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.010911 dated 01.03.2019 for an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/-, drawn on Central Bank of India, Branch Karsog. It was averred that upon presentation, the said cheque was dishonoured due to “funds insu=cient” vide memo dated 12.03.2019. Consequently, the present respondent led a complaint against the petitioner. 7. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karsog, District Mandi, H.P., vide judgment dated 03.06.2024, convicted the petitioner for the o?ence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The learned Trial Court further directed payment of compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the tune of Rs. 3,70,000/-, out of which Rs. 50,000/- had already been paid by the accused during the course of trial, towards the loss and injury su?ered by the complainant. 8. The said judgment of conviction and order of sentence were challenged by the petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P.; however, the appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the learned Trial Court was a=rmed. 9. The petitioner as well as the respondent have led a compromise deed, which is duly signed by the present respondent and by the wife of the present petitioner, namely Smt. Manorama Devi. 10. The statements of the wife of the petitioner, namely Smt. Manorama Devi, and the respondent, Manohar Lal, have been recorded separately, which clearly establish that the compromise has been entered into voluntarily, without any fear, pressure, or coercion. The statements further reveal that the entire compensation amount has been paid to the respondent, Manohar Lal, and the remaining amount of Rs. 74,000/-, which is lying deposited before the learned Trial Court, is liable to be released in favour of the respondent. 11. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, and particularly in view of the compromise e?ected between the parties, which is evident from the record and supported by the statements made by the parties, this Court deems it t that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karsog, District Mandi, H.P., in Complaint No. 57 of 2019 under Section 138 of the Act, the case titled Manohar Lal vs. Bhagat Ram, as a=rmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., on 12.09.2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2024, is quashed and set aside, and the petitioner is acquitted of the o?ence. It is made clear that the parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise, and any violation thereof shall be viewed seriously in accordance with law. 12. It has been stated that ₹74,000/- has been deposited before the learned Trial Court and this amount is to be disbursed to the Complainant as per the terms of the compromise. Therefore, the amount is ordered to be released in favour of the Complainant under proper receipt and identication by remitting it to the Complainant's bank account, upon furnishing the necessary details (if not furnished earlier). It has also been submitted that no any other additional amount was deposited before the learned Trial Court or the learned Appellate Court; hence, no further order is required to be passed. 13. However, this order shall be, subject to the deposit of 7.5% of the cheque amount, as compounding fee. 50% of the amount of compounding fee shall be deposited by the accused with the Member Secretary, H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Shimla, and remaining 50% of the aforesaid amount shall be deposited with the H.P. High Court Sta? Welfare Association, within a period of eight weeks from today. 14. It is further claried that if the petitioner fails to deposit the compounding fee, as ordered by this Court, within a period of eight weeks, then, the present petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed, by reviving the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.06.2024, passed by learned trial Court and in that eventuality, he shall surrender before the learned trial Court to undergo the substantive sentence, imposed upon him, by the learned trial Court. The amount so deposited, by the petitioner-accused, before the learned trial Court, is ordered to be released in his favour. 15. The petitioner is stated to be in judicial custody and he is presently lodged in Model Central Jail Kanda, District Shimla, H.P. He is ordered to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Release warrants be prepared accordingly and the same be sent to the Superintendent, Model Central Jail Kanda, Shimla, H.P. forthwith for necessary compliance. 16. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Romesh Verma) Vacation Judge 09th February, 2026. (Shamsh Tabrez) KHEM RAJ THAKUR Digitally signed by KHEM RAJ THAKUR Date: 2026.02.09 18:34:15 +0545