Dev Vs H.P. State Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Cr. Revision No.441 of 2025 Date of Decision: 03.06.2026

¶3

Dev ……...Petitioner Versus H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd. …....Respondent

¶4

Coram

¶5

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

¶6

Whether approved for reporting?

¶7

__________________________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Suresh Singh Saini, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate.

¶8

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶9

Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the BNSS, lays challenge to judgment dated 29.05.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.105 of 2024, titled Sh. Dev Vs. H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd., affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.08.2024, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kullu, District Kullu, 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

¶10

2

¶11

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and pay compensation to the tune of ₹90,000/- to the complainant.

¶12

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 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, alleging therein that accused with a view to discharge his liability issued Cheque for a sum of Rs.81,280/-, 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.

¶13

Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 07.08.2024, 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.

¶14

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, Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 29.05.2025,

¶15

3

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

Counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that entire amount of compensation is lying deposited with the learned trial Court and the same has been agreed to be released in favour of respondent/complainant. He states that since petitioner/accused has agreed to pay entire amount of compensation awarded by learned trial Court, this Court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act may proceed to compound the offence.

¶19

Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, states that he has instructions to depose on behalf of respondent-complainant. He states that complainant has compromised the matter with the petitioner-accused and as per compromise, entire compensation amount has been deposited with the learned trial Court and in case amount lying deposited with the learned

¶20

4

¶21

trial Court is ordered to be released in favour of the complainant, complainant shall have no objection in case the judgments of conviction passed by the learned Courts below are quashed and set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge framed against him. However, he states that 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.

¶22

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 in the event of its being released the amount lying deposited with the learned trial Court, 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.

¶23

Consequently, in view of the above, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and sentence dated

¶24

5

¶25

29.05.2025 and 07.08.2024, passed by the learned Appellate Court and learned trial Court are quashed and set aside and the petitioner-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. Entire amount lying deposited with the learned trial Court is ordered to be released in favour of the respondent-complainant by remitting the same in its bank account, detail whereof shall be furnished by its counsel within one week.

¶26

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 ₹5,000/- as litigation charges in favour of respondent/complainant and further to deposit sum of ₹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.

¶27

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶28

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶29

June 03, 2026 (Rajeev Raturi)

Dev v. H.P. State Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dev v. H.P. State Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development 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

Abhishek Vs State of Hp

Sachin Kumar Vs State of Hp

Dalip Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

Sant Ram Vs State of Hp

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of Hp

Pardeep Kumar Vs State of Hp