Mohan Negi Vs H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd.

2026:HHC:16288

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. Revision No.268 of 2026 Date of Decision: 12.05.2026

__________________________________________________________________________ Mohan Negi ……...Petitioner Versus HDFC Bank Ltd. …....Respondent

¶5

Coram

¶6

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

¶7

Whether approved for reporting?

¶8

__________________________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Ms. Anita Dogra, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Jitender P. Dogra, Advocate.

¶9

_________________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶10

Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 442 of the BNSS, lays challenge to judgment dated 11.03.2026, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur Bushehar, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal CIS Case Regd. No.127/2025, titled Mohan Negi Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.10.2025/08.10.2025, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, whereby the learned trial Court while holding the petitioner-accused (hereinafter, ‘ accused ’) guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short the “Act"), convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six

¶11

2026:HHC:16288

¶12

2

¶13

months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.13,00,000/- to the complainant.

¶14

Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that respondent-complainant (hereinafter, ‘ complainant ’) instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act, in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, alleging therein that accused with a view to discharge his liability issued Cheque for a sum of Rs.8,78,460/-, but fact remains that aforesaid Cheque on its presentation, was dishonoured. Since petitioner-accused failed to make the payment good within the time stipulated in the legal notice, respondent/complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings before the competent Court of law under Section 138 of the Act.

¶15

Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 06.10.2025/08.10.2025, held the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him, as per the description given hereinabove.

¶16

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by the Court below, accused preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur Bushehar, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment

¶17

2026:HHC:16288

¶18

3

¶19

dated 11.03.2026, as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, present petitioner-accused has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, seeking therein his acquittal after setting aside the judgments of conviction recorded by the Courts below.

¶20

Before case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merits, parties have entered into compromise, whereby petitioner/accused has paid entire loan amount to the respondent/complainant.

¶21

Today, during the proceedings of the case, learned counsel representing the petitioner/accused apprised this Court that entire loan amount has been deposited with the respondent-Bank, which fact has been duly acknowledged by learned counsel representing the respondent/complainant. Learned counsel representing the

¶22

petitioner/accused stated that since petitioner has paid entire amount in question, this Court while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act may proceed to compound the offence.

¶23

Mr. Jitender P. Ranot, Advocate, while putting in appearance on behalf of respondent/Bank, stated that he has instructions to depose on behalf of respondent-complainant. He stated that complainant has compromised the matter with the petitioner-accused and as per the compromise, complainant has received the entire loan amount as full and

¶24

2026:HHC:16288

¶25

4

¶26

final settlement and as such, complainant shall have no objection in case judgments of conviction and order of sentence recorded by both the learned Courts below are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 138 of the Act. However, some amount on account of litigation charges may be awarded in favour of complainant because it was unnecessarily dragged into litigation for realization of its own money. His statement is taken on record.

¶27

Since parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them, as has been taken note hereinabove, coupled with the fact that 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 by the Courts below.

¶28

Consequently, in view of the above, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and sentence dated 11.03.2026 and 06.10.2025/08.10.2025, passed by the learned Appellate Court and learned trial Court are quashed and set aside and the petitioner-

¶29

2026:HHC:16288

¶30

5

¶31

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.

¶32

Since respondent/complainant was compelled to engage in unwarranted litigation with the petitioner/accused for realization of its own money, petitioner-accused is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as litigation charges in favour of respondent/complainant and further to deposit 5₹ ,000/- with the H.P. State Legal Service Authority as compounding fee, within a period of eight weeks, failing which petitioner/accused shall render himself for penal consequences as well as Contempt of Court.

¶33

The present petition is disposed in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶34

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶35

May 12, 2026 (Rajeev Raturi)

Mohan Negi v. H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Negi v. H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd.

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

Rajender Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

State Bank of India Vs Wg.Cdr.Ibk Singh Memorial Society for Art Acad.

Joginder Sharma Vs M/S Goyal Plywood and Glass House

Kuldeep Singh Vs State of Hp

M/S Sanity Life Sciences and Another Vs M/S Jmm Laboratories

Mehar Chand Vs Hira Lal and Anr.