IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No.122 of 2026 Date of Decision: 6.3.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Rajinder Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus Anu Thakur …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Jagat Pal, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Mohinder Verma, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Cr.MP(M) No. 248 of 2026 By way of instant application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, prayer has been made on behalf of the applicant/petitioner for condonation of delay in maintaining the accompanying criminal revision petition, which is barred by limitation. Learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant/respondent fairly states that no reply is required to be filed and this Court may pass appropriate orders. Having carefully perused the averments contained in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, this Court finds no impediment in accepting the prayer, especially when delay caused in maintaining accompanying criminal revision petition does not appear to be intentional or willful, rather same has occurred on account of 2 circumstances which were completely beyond the control of the applicant, as such, the same deserves to be condoned. In view of above, delay, which has been otherwise sufficiently explained, is condoned. The application is disposed of. Cr. Revision No.122 of 2026 Be registered. Instant criminal revision petition, lays challenge to judgment dated 27.1.2018, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No. 35-S/10 of 2016, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 2.5.2016, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-5, Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Complaint No.91/3 of 2015, 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 him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- to the respondent-complainant (herein after referred to as the “complainant” ). 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that complainant instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act, in the competent court of law, alleging therein that accused with a view to 3 discharge his liability issued cheque amounting to Rs. 30,000/- in favour of the complainant, but fact remains that the aforesaid cheque on its presentation, was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. Since 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 pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 2.5.2016, held the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, sentenced him 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 before learned First Appellate Court, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment 27.1.2018, as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the 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. Before case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merit, Mr. Jagat Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused stated that 4 out of total compensation amount of Rs. 60,000/-, accused has paid Rs.51,000/- to the respondent/complainant, whereas sum of Rs. 9,000/- already stands deposited before the learned trial court below. He stated that petitioner shall have no objection in case amount lying deposited before the learned trial Court is released in favour of the complainant and thereafter, this Court while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, may compound the offence and acquit the accused. 6. Respondent-complainant Smt. Anu Thakur, who is present in the Court, states on oath that she of her own volition and without there being any external pressure has entered into compromise with the petitioner, whereby she has received Rs. 51,000/- from the petitioner and she shall have no objection in compounding the offence in case amount lying deposited before the learned trial Court is ordered to be released in her favour. 7. Having taken note of the fact that entire amount of compensation stands paid or 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 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 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. 8. Consequently, in view of the above, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and sentence dated 2.5.2016 and 27.1.2018, passed by the learned courts below are quashed and set-aside and the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 138 of the Act. Interim order, if any, is vacated. Bail bonds, if any, are discharged. Learned trial court below is directed to release Rs.9,000/- deposited by the petitioner-accused in favour of the respondent-complainant, by remitting the same in her saving bank account, detail whereof shall be furnished within one week. The petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any. March 6, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge