Sanjeev Kumar Vs Raj Pal Singh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Criminal Revision No213 of 2026.

Date of Decision: 17.04.2026

________________________________________ Sanjeev Kumar Versus	_______________ …….Petitioner
Raj Pal Singh	… Respondent
________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹	_______________

¶5

For the Petitioner: Mr. Parikshit Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Aishwarya Chauhan, Advocate. ______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶6

Cr.MP (M) No.613 of 2026

¶7

By way of instant application, prayer has been made on

¶8

behalf of the applicant/petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the accompanying petition, which is barred by limitation.

¶9

2. Mr. Aishwarya Chauhan, Advocate has put in

¶10

appearance on behalf of the non-applicant/respondent. He, on instructions of his client, who is present in Court, states that on account of amicable settlement arrived interse parties, nonapplicant/respondent shall have no objection in case the prayer made in the application is allowed.

¶11

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

¶12

2

¶13

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 509 days in filing the petition, which in my considered view has been sufficiently explained, is condoned. The petition be registered. The application stands disposed of.

¶14

Cr. Revision No. 213 of 2026

¶15

Instant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, lays challenge to judgment dated 17.08.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla(camp at Reckong Peo), Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.50 of 2019, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.08.2019 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kinnaur at Reckong Peo, District Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh, in case registration No.17 of 2014, titled Raj Pal Singh vs. Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, 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

¶16

3

¶17

sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay sum of Rs.6,00,000/- to the respondent -complainant as compensation ( hereinafter, ‘complainant’).

¶18

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.251203 amounting to Rs. 6, 00,000/-, 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. 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.

¶19

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 Sessions Judge, Kinnaur, District Shimla, H.P, but same was dismissed vide judgment dated 17.08.2024. In the aforesaid background, petitioner-

¶20

4

¶21

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 both the learned Courts below.

¶22

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. On account of the compromise, petitioner filed an application under Section 147 of the Act, praying therein for compounding of the offence.

¶23

Today, during the proceedings of the case, learned counsel representing the petitioner states that the petitioner has entered into the compromise with the respondent-complainant, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably. He states that since entire amount of the compensation has been paid to the respondent-complainant, this Court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, may proceed to compound the offence.

¶24

Mr. Aishwarya Chauhan, learned counsel representing respondent-complainant, while fairly acknowledging factum with regard to compromise arrived interse parties, states that since entire compensation amount has been received by the respondentcomplainant, this Court may allow the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner-accused for compounding of the offence.

¶25

5

¶26

Having taken note of the fact that entire amount of compensation has been paid to the respondent-complainant 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 Cou rt 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.

¶27

Consequently, in view of the above, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and order of sentence passed by the courts below are set-aside and the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charge framed against her under Section 138 of the Act. Bail bonds, if any, are discharged. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶28

Since complainant was compelled to engage in unwarranted litigation with the accused for realization of his own amount, petitioner-accused is directed to deposit sum of Rs. 5000/- with the H.P. State Legal Service Authority as compounding fee within a period of eight weeks, failing which, he

¶29

6

¶30

shall render himself liable for penal consequences as well as contempt of the Court.

¶31

Registry is directed to prepare the release warrants and transmit the same forthwith to Sub-Jail Kalpa at Reckong Peo, District Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh, enabling the aforesaid authority to release the petitioner immediately, subject to verification that he is not required in any other case.

¶32

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶33

April 17, 2026 (shankar)

¶34

Digitally signed by SHANKAR LAL DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone= 1933533e07baa798c8e03981ed5249aaab30041 fdc541b629a39e524cb9d2962, PostalCode= 171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER= f0acdee2938bf725fb8b3ec1e185003804962ff708 a378635c113ca06384c947, CN=SHANKAR LAL Reason: I am the author of this document Location: Date: 2026.04.17 17:10:28+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0

¶35

SHANK AR LAL

Sanjeev Kumar v. Raj Pal Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Kumar v. Raj Pal Singh

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

Pushpa Devi Vs State of Hp and Another

Rajmal Vs State of Hp

Sahil Pojta @ Chinku Vs State of Hp

Charanjeet Arora Vs State of Hp

Sidharth Vs State of Hp

Bacchan Vs State of Hp