2026:HHC:4559 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 705 of 2024 Date of Decision: 26.02.2026 _______________________________________________________ Manoj Kumar …….Petitioner Versus Punjab National Bank and another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Sanket Sankhyan, Advocate vice Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr.Rajan Kahol, Mr.Vishal Panwar Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banstu, Deputy Advocates Generals for respondent No.2/State. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Instant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, lays challenge to judgment dated 29.08.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, H.P in Criminal Appeal No.443 of 2022 titled as Manoj Kumar vs Punjab National Bank and another, affirming the judgment of conviction dated 11.12.2018 and order of sentence dated 24.05.2022 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Ist 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. 2026:HHC:4559 Class, Court No.2 Hamirpur, H.P in Criminal Complaint No.77/01 of 2017 for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 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 him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay compensation of Rs.60,000/-to the respondent- complainant (hereinafter, ‘complainant’). 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by the respective parties are that the respondent-complainant instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act in the competent Court of law, alleging therein that cheque Ex.C1 bearing No.318375 dated 17.06.2017, amounting to Rs.50,000/-, 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 vide memo Ex.C2. Though, at the first instance, complainant issued a legal notice Ex.C3, thereby calling upon accused to make payment good well within stipulated time but since he 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 3. 2026:HHC:4559 Court of law, which subsequently, on the basis of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, held the accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under S. 138 of the Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as per description given herein above. 3. Though, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid judgment of conviction dated 11.12.2018 and order of sentence dated 24.05.2022 passed by JMFC, Court No.2 Hamirpur, Distt. Hamirpur, H.P, accused preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P, but same was dismissed vide judgment dated 29.08.2024. In the aforesaid background, 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 Courts detailed hereinabove. 4. Vide order dated 05.11.2024, this Court suspended the substantive sentence imposed upon the accused by learned trial Court, subject to the accused depositing 30% of the compensation amount in addition to amount already deposited within a period of four weeks and furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-, with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court during the same period. 4. 2026:HHC:4559 5. Since accused, after passing of afore order, has deposited the entire amount of compensation, he has filed Cr.MP No. 1125 of 2025 under Section 147 of the N.I Act praying for compounding the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused under Section 138 of the Act. It has been averred in the application that entire sum of Rs.60,000/- has been deposited with this Court as well as learned trial Court. To substantiate his afore plea, copies of demand draft/cheque made in the name of Registrar General of this Court as well as learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.2 Hamirpur, H.P have been annexed with the application. 6. Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner, states that since the petitioner has already deposited the entire amount of the compensation and he has no objection in release of the same to the respondent-complainant, this Court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, may proceed to compound the offence. 7. Mr. Sanket Sankhyan, Advocate Vice Mr. Arvind Sharma, representing respondent No.1, states that he has no objection in compounding the offence, subject to release of amount lying deposited with the Registry of this Court as well as learned trial Court but this Court, while doing so, may take note of the fact that 5. 2026:HHC:4559 respondent-bank was unnecessarily dragged into the litigation for realization of its own money. 8. Since it is apparent from the pleadings as has been taken note herein above that sum of Rs.60,000/- is already lying deposited with the Registry of this Court as well as learned trial Court and respondent has no objection in releasing the same in favour of the respondent bank, 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 dated 11.12.2018 and order of sentence dated 24.05.2022 and judgment dated 29.08.2024 passed by the 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. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 6. 2026:HHC:4559 10. Registry of this Court as well as learned trial Court is directed to release the amount lying deposited with it in favour of respondent/complainant by remitting the same in the bank account, detail whereof, shall be furnished by the counsel within a period of two weeks. Since, the respondent-bank was unnecessarily dragged into the litigation, this Court deems it fit to direct the petitioner to pay sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation charges to the respondent/complainant and 5% of the cheque amount towards compounding fee with the H.P. State Legal Service Authority within a period of six weeks, failing which, he shall render himself liable for penal consequences as well as contempt of the Court. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge February 26, 2026 (meera)