Allowed

M/S Alone Biotech Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Integrated Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.

Himachal Pradesh HC16 Jul 2026CR.R/33/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Conviction and sentence for cheque dishonour under Section 138 NI Act was challenged in revision. Parties settled through mediation with agreed installment payments, and the High Court compounded the offence under Section 147 following Damodar S. Prabhu.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; conviction and sentence quashed upon compounding of offence under S.147 NI Act; liberty to complainant to revive petition on default in payment.

M/S Alone Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Integrated… — Cheque Dishonour | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Criminal Revision No.33 of 2025 Date of Decision: 16.07.2026

¶4

_________________________________________________ M/s Alone Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Versus	________________________ ……...Petitioner
M/s Integrated Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.	…....Respondent

¶5

Coram

¶6

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Parikshit Sharma & Mr. Vipin Pandit, Advocates.

¶7

For the Respondent: Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, Advocate.

¶8

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶9

Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 438 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, lays challenge to judgment dated 04.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nahan, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.158-N/10 of 2023, modifying the judgment of conviction dated 25.09.2023 and order of sentence dated 26.09.2023, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur at Nahan, H.P. in Criminal complaint No.17/3 of 2020, whereby the learned Court below, while holding the petitioner-accused (in

¶10

¶11

short the " 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 months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5,25,158/- to respondent-complainant (in short the " complainant ").

¶12

2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record by the respective parties are that complainant instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act in the competent Court of law, alleging therein that with a view to discharge his lawful liability, accused issued cheque Ext.P2/PW-1 of Punjab National Bank at Narela Road, Ghevera, Delhi, in favour of the complainant, but aforesaid cheque on its presentation to the bank concerned was returned back vide return memo dated 16.09.2019 with the remarks “Funds Insufficient”. Since accused failed to make the payment good within the stipulated period despite his having received legal notice, complainant had no option, but to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act in the competent Court of law.

¶13

¶14

3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 25.09.2023/ 26.09.2023, held the accused guilty of his having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as per the description given herein above.

¶15

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Court below, accused preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nahan, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, which was partly allowed. Learned Appellate Court reduced the compensation amount from Rs.5,25,128/to Rs.4,00,000/-. In the aforesaid background, accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for his acquittal after setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the learned Court below.

¶16

5. Vide order dated 14.01.2025, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court stayed the substantive sentence imposed by the learned Court below subject to the accused depositing 50% of the compensation amount and furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the

¶17

¶18

like amount within a period of four weeks. Aforesaid order was duly complied with.

¶19

6. Since during proceedings of the case, learned counsel for the parties apprised this Court with regard to intention of the parties to settle the dispute amicably inter se them, this Court, vide order dated 06.10.2025, referred the matter for mediation. It is heartening to note that under the guidance of Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, who was appointed as Mediator, the parties have been able to resolve their dispute amicably. Careful perusal of order dated 17.11.2025 passed by the learned Mediator, which is ordered to be made part of the present proceedings, reveals that vide award dated 18.10.2025 passed in Arbitration Case, an amount of Rs.30,97,805/- was awarded in favour of the accused and against the complainant. In addition to afore amount, sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was awarded by the Appellate Court in the instant proceedings vide judgment dated 04.01.2025. Parties have now mutually agreed to settle the dispute on the terms that the complainant would be satisfied, if, accused pays a total amount of Rs.16,00,000/- as full and final settlement for all claims arising out of the two proceedings, i.e. arbitration

¶20

¶21

proceedings and the present criminal revision petition. In the instant criminal revision petition, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- has been deposited by the accused before the learned trial Court at Nahan and remaining amount of Rs.14,00,000/- shall be paid by the accused to the complainant as per schedule given in order dated 17.11.2025 passed by learned Mediator, perusal whereof reveals that w.e.f November, 2025 till April, 2026, accused shall pay monthly installments of Rs.25,000/- each and thereafter w.e.f May 2026 till May, 2028, he shall pay the monthly installments of Rs.50,000/- each. In the event of default, if any, in adhering to the terms of the settlement, the same shall be construed as a breach of the settlement, and the respondent shall be at liberty to seek its enforcement in accordance with law.

¶22

7. Learned counsel for the parties fairly state that in terms of aforesaid settlement, accused has been regularly paying installments. They state that in view of aforesaid compromise arrived inter se parties, this Court may dispose of the present petition reserving liberty to the complainant to get the same revived, in the event of default, if any, in making payment by the accused in terms of settlement. Since it is clear

¶23

¶24

from the detail of settlement, as given hereinabove, that parties have settled the dispute amicably inter se them, this Court sees no impediment in compounding the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused, 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 by the courts below.

¶25

8. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is allowed. Judgment of conviction dated 04.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nahan, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.158-N/10 of 2023 and 25.09.2023 and order of sentence dated 26.09.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur at Nahan H.P. in Criminal complaint No.17/3 of 2020, are quashed and set aside. However, it is made clear that in case amount, as has been agreed to be paid in installments, is not paid by the accused, he besides rendering himself liable for penal consequences, would also invite contempt

¶26

¶27

proceedings. It shall be open for the complainant to get the present petition revived in the event of default in making payment, if any, by the accused, enabling this Court to pass appropriate orders. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶28

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶29

July 16, 2026 (sunil)

M/S Alone Biotech Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Integrated Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Alone Biotech Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Integrated Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaurya Vs State of Hp and Another

Bhagirath Vs Yoginder Sharma

Bhagirath Vs Yoginder Sharma

Kewal Singh Negi Vs Baldev Singh Shandil

Rakesh Arora and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

Sandeep@Jonti Vs State