IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 131 of 2026 Date of Decision: 11.03.2026 _______________________________________________________ Chaman Lal …….Petitioner Versus Prem Singh … Respondent _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Munish Datwalia, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Cr.MP(M) No.27 of 2026 By way of instant application, prayer has been made on behalf of the applicant/petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the accompanying petition, which is barred by limitation. 2. Having carefully perused the averments contained in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, this Court is convinced and satisfied that delay in maintaining the accompanying petition is neither intentional nor deliberate, rather same has occurred on the account of the circumstances, which were completely beyond the control of the applicant/petitioner and as such, delay of 8 days in filing the petition, which in my considered view has been sufficiently 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 explained, is condoned. The petition be registered. The application stands disposed of. Cr. Revision No.131of 2026 3. Instant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, lays challenge to judgment dated 30.08.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Mandi, District Mandi, HP, in Criminal Appeal No.19 of 2025, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.12.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh in complaint No.407-III/24/20, whereby learned trial Court, while holding the petitioner-accused (hereinafter, ‘accused’) guilty of having committed offence punishable under S. 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 to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- to the respondent (hereinafter, ‘complainant’). 4. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the 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.950814, dated 25.11.2019, amounting to Rs. 7,50,000/ drawn at State Bank of India, Branch Sundernagar, 3 District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, 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 the accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under S. 138 of Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as per description given herein above. 5. 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-II, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P, but same was dismissed vide judgment dated 30.08.2025. 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 learned trial Court as well as Appellate Court. 4 6. On 27.02.2026, learned counsel for the petitioner apprised this Court that the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them. 7. Mr. Rakesh Thakur, learned counsel representing the respondent/complainant, while fairly acknowledging factum with regard to compromise interse parties, states that on account of marriage in the family of the respondent/complainant, he has not been able to come present, however he has definite instruction to state that on account of compromise arrived interse parties, respondent/ complainant shall have no objection in compounding the offence. 8. While referring to application i.e. Cr.MP No.794 of 2026 filed at the behest of the petitioner under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, Mr. Munish Datwalia, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the parties have settled the matter for sum of Rs.1,15,000/- and as such, this Court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, may proceed to compound the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act. 9. Since factum of compromise as contained in the application, as detailed hereinabove, is not disputed, rather stands duly admitted by learned counsel for the respondent/complainant, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of 5 the petitioner for compounding of the 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. 10. 10. 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. Interim order, if any, is vacated. Bail bonds, if any, are discharged. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 11. Since complainant was compelled to engage in unwarranted litigation with the accused for realization of his own amount, petitioner-accused is directed to deposit 5% of the cheque amount 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. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 11,2026 (shankar)