IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 269 of 2026 Date of Decision: 11.05.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Karam Dass ……...Petitioner Versus HP State Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd. …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Aakash Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Narender Singh Thakur, Advocate. _________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Cr.MP(M) No. 801 of 2026 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 criminal revision is neither intentional nor deliberate, rather same has occurred on account of the circumstances, which were completely beyond the control of the applicant-petitioner and as such, delay in filing the accompanying criminal revision, which in my considered view has been sufficiently explained, is condoned. The application stands disposed of. Petition be registered. 2 Cr. Revision No.269 of 2026 2. Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, lays challenge to judgment dated 22.07.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No.41-S/10 of 2024, affirming the judgment of conviction dated 29.02.2024 and order of sentence dated 30.03.2024 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chopal, District Shimla, H.P., in criminal complaint No.158-3 of 2019, whereby learned Court below, while holding 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 three months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- to the respondent-complainant (hereinafter ‘complainant). 3. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act in the competent Court of law, alleging therein that accused with a view to discharge his liability issued cheque bearing No.905964 dated 11.07.2019 amounting to Rs.1,93,000/- in favour of the complainant, however, the same was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the bank account of the petitioner-accused. Since petitioner-accused failed to make the payment good within the time stipulated in the legal notice, complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act before the competent Court of law. 3 4. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 29.02.2024/ 30.03.2024, held the accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as per the description given hereinabove. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Court below, accused preferred an appeal in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 22.07.2024, as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein for his acquittal after setting aside the judgments of conviction recorded by the courts below. 6. Today, during proceedings of the case, learned counsel for the parties apprised this Court that during pendency of the appeal, parties have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them, whereby accused has agreed to pay entire amount of compensation awarded by the learned Court below. 7. While making reference to the compromise arrived inter se parties, Mr. Aakash Thakur, learned counsel for the accused, states that since parties have already compromised the matter, this Court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, may proceed to compound the offence and acquit the accused from the charge framed against him. 4 8. Mr. Narender Singh Thakur, Advocate, while putting in appearance on behalf of the complainant, states that he has instructions to depose on behalf of the complainant. He states that complainant has compromised the matter with the accused and as per compromise, complainant has received the entire amount of compensation, as such, he shall have no objection in compounding the offence, but some amount qua litigation charges may be awarded in favour of the complainant because it was unnecessarily dragged into litigation for realization of its own money. His statement is taken on record. 9. Since parties have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them, as has been taken note hereinabove, coupled with the fact that complainant has no objection in compounding the offence, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the accused for compounding 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 by the courts below. 10. Consequently, in view of the discussion made hereinabove as well as law taken into consideration, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction dated 22.07.2024 and sentence dated 29.02.2024 and 30.03.2024, passed by the learned Courts below are quashed and set-aside and the accused is acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 138 of the Act. Interim order, if any, is 5 vacated. Bail bonds, if any, discharged. The petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any. 11. Since complainant was compelled to engage in unwarranted litigation with the accused for realization of its own amount, accused is directed to deposit Rs.5,000/- with the HP State Legal Service Authority as compounding fee and Rs.10,000/- as litigation charges payable to the complainant within a period of eight weeks, failing which, he shall render himself liable for penal consequences as well as contempt of court. 12. Since the accused is behind bars, Registry is directed to prepare the release warrants and send the same to the concerned Superintendent of Jail, forthwith, enabling the aforesaid authority to release the accused immediately, subject to verification that he is required in any other case. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge May 11, 2026 (sunil) SUNIL KUMAR Digitally signed by SUNIL KUMAR Date: 2026.05.11 16:48:50 +0530