Hoshiyar Singh Vs Hpgb Baldwara

2026:HHC:22817

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Criminal Revision No. 155 of 2026 Date of Decision: 17.06.2026

_______________________________________________________ Hoshiyar Singh …….Petitioner Versus
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank … Respondent
_______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vijay Singh Bhatia, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. K. B. Khajuria, Advocate.
_______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶5

Instant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, lays challenge to judgment dated 01.01.2026, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.07 of 2025, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.05.2025, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.1, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh in Complaint Registered No.06 of 2023, titled HPGB, Branch Office at Baldwara vs. Hoshiyar Singh , 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 four months and pay

¶6

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶7

2

¶8

2026:HHC:22817

¶9

compensation to the tune of Rs.1,75,000/- to the respondentcomplainant ( hereinafter, ‘complainant’).

¶10

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 accused took loan for his small business amounting to Rs. 1, 00,000/under loan account No. 87158700021766 at 10% agreed rate of interest and in order to discharge the legal liability towards the complainant-bank, he issued cheque bearing No.821523, dated 12.01.2023, amounting to Rs. 1, 41, 296 of Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Branch Baldwara, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. However, fact remains that aforesaid cheque on its presentation to the bank concerned 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.

¶11

3

¶12

2026:HHC:22817

¶13

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, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, but same was dismissed vide judgment dated 01.01.2026. 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 Appellate Court.

¶14

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.

¶15

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. 1, 22,000. Sum of Rs. 50,000/- has been deposited with the respondent-bank and remaining amount of Rs. 72,000/- has been agreed to be paid by the petitioner within a period of 90 days starting from 04.06.2026 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.

¶16

4

¶17

2026:HHC:22817

¶18

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 respondent-complainant shall have no objection in compounding the offence, subject to the condition that petitioner shall pay the remaining amount of Rs.72,000/- to the respondent-complainant-bank within a period of 90 days, as agreed under One Time Settlement Scheme.

¶19

Having taken note of the fact that entire amount of compensation has been agreed to be paid to the respondentcomplainant-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 Cour t 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.

¶20

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

¶21

5

¶22

2026:HHC:22817

¶23

of the charge framed against him under Section 138 of the Act. Bail bonds, if any, are discharged. Interim order, if any, is vacated.

¶24

The petitioner is directed to deposit sum of Rs. 72,000/with the respondent-bank within a period of 90 days starting from 04.06.2026, failing which, he shall render himself liable for penal consequences as well as contempt of the Court. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶25

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶26

June 17,2026

¶27

(shankar)

Hoshiyar Singh v. Hpgb Baldwara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hoshiyar Singh v. Hpgb Baldwara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Hp and Others Vs Balak Ram

Ankush Kalia Vs State of Hp

Chanchalo Devi Vs M. Sudha Devi and Others

Rohit Kaistha Vs State of Hp

Ravi Singh Vs State of Hp

Shyam Singh Verma Vs Anila Verma