2026:HHC:25800 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 187 of 2026 Date of Decision: 01.07.2026 _______________________________________________________ Paras Ram …….Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank … Respondent _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Yoginder Paul, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. K. B. Khajuria, Advocate. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):

Instant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, lays challenge to order dated 17.02.2026, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sundernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in Cr.M.A. No.433 of 2025, whereby application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, came to be dismissed. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.03.2025, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sundernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in CIS Reg. No.74 of 2027, titled as Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank vs. Paras Ram, 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 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:25800 sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine to the tune of Rs.7,50,000/- to the respondent-complainant (hereinafter, ‘complainant’), was upheld.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that the respondent-complainant-bank instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act in the competent Court of law, alleging therein that cheque bearing No.450562, dated 08.02.2017, amounting to Rs. 6, 00,000/-, having been issued by the 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 hereinabove. 3. 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, Sundernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. However, the application 3 2026:HHC:25800

came to be dismissed vide order dated 17.02.2026 and consequently, the appeal was also dismissed being barred by limitation. In the aforesaid background, petitioner-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 order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sundernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. 4. Before the case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merit, petitioner has entered into the compromise with the respondent/Complainant, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them. 5. Today, during the proceedings of the case, learned counsel representing the petitioner stated that the petitioner has entered into the compromise with the respondent-complainant under One Time Settlement Scheme for sum of Rs.9,00,000/-. Sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- has been deposited with the respondent-bank, as is evident from the No Objection Certificate placed on record and as such, this Court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, may proceed to compound the offence and acquit the accused of charge framed against him under Section 138 of the Act. 6. Mr. K. B. Khajuria, learned counsel representing the respondent-complainant-bank, while fairly acknowledging the factum with regard to compromise arrived interse parties, states that 4 2026:HHC:25800

respondent-complainant shall have no objection in compounding the offence, subject to the condition that petitioner shall pay sum of Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses to the respondent-complainant-bank within a period of eight weeks, as agreed under One Time Settlement Scheme. 7. Having taken note of the fact that entire amount of compensation has been paid to the respondent-complainant-bank and respondent-complainant 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 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 order of sentence passed by learned trial Court as well as order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sundernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, are set-aside and the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 138 of the 5 2026:HHC:25800 Act. Bail bonds, if any, are discharged. Interim order, if any, is vacated.

9. Since complainant-bank was compelled to engage in unwarranted litigation with the accused for realization of his own amount, petitioner-accused is directed to pay sum of Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses to the respondent-complainant and deposit Rs. 10,000/- with the H.P. State Legal Service Authority as compounding fee within a period of eight weeks, failing which, he shall render himself liable for penal consequences as well as contempt of the Court. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 01,2026 (shankar)

2026:HHC:25800 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 187 of 2026 Date of Decision: 01.07.2026 _______________________________________________________ Paras Ram …….Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank … Respondent _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Yoginder Paul, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. K. B. Khajuria, Advocate. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):

Instant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, lays challenge to order dated 17.02.2026, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sundernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in Cr.M.A. No.433 of 2025, whereby application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, came to be dismissed. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.03.2025, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sundernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in CIS Reg. No.74 of 2027, titled as Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank vs. Paras Ram, 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 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:25800 sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine to the tune of Rs.7,50,000/- to the respondent-complainant (hereinafter, ‘complainant’), was upheld.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that the respondent-complainant-bank instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act in the competent Court of law, alleging therein that cheque bearing No.450562, dated 08.02.2017, amounting to Rs. 6, 00,000/-, having been issued by the 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 hereinabove. 3. 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, Sundernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. However, the application 3 2026:HHC:25800

came to be dismissed vide order dated 17.02.2026 and consequently, the appeal was also dismissed being barred by limitation. In the aforesaid background, petitioner-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 order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sundernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. 4. Before the case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merit, petitioner has entered into the compromise with the respondent/Complainant, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them. 5. Today, during the proceedings of the case, learned counsel representing the petitioner stated that the petitioner has entered into the compromise with the respondent-complainant under One Time Settlement Scheme for sum of Rs.9,00,000/-. Sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- has been deposited with the respondent-bank, as is evident from the No Objection Certificate placed on record and as such, this Court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, may proceed to compound the offence and acquit the accused of charge framed against him under Section 138 of the Act. 6. Mr. K. B. Khajuria, learned counsel representing the respondent-complainant-bank, while fairly acknowledging the factum with regard to compromise arrived interse parties, states that 4 2026:HHC:25800

respondent-complainant shall have no objection in compounding the offence, subject to the condition that petitioner shall pay sum of Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses to the respondent-complainant-bank within a period of eight weeks, as agreed under One Time Settlement Scheme. 7. Having taken note of the fact that entire amount of compensation has been paid to the respondent-complainant-bank and respondent-complainant 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 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 order of sentence passed by learned trial Court as well as order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sundernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, are set-aside and the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 138 of the 5 2026:HHC:25800 Act. Bail bonds, if any, are discharged. Interim order, if any, is vacated.

9. Since complainant-bank was compelled to engage in unwarranted litigation with the accused for realization of his own amount, petitioner-accused is directed to pay sum of Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses to the respondent-complainant and deposit Rs. 10,000/- with the H.P. State Legal Service Authority as compounding fee within a period of eight weeks, failing which, he shall render himself liable for penal consequences as well as contempt of the Court. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 01,2026 (shankar)