Neeta Ram Vs H.P State Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank

Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 438 & 442 of the BNSS, lays challenge to judgment dated 22.07.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.77 of 2023, titled Neeta Ram Vs. H.P. Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.08.2023, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shillai, District Sirmaur, 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

¶12

-2-

¶13

imprisonment for a period of six months and pay compensation to the tune of ₹1,29,827/- 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 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shillai, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, alleging therein that accused with a view to discharge his liability issued Cheque for a sum of Rs.1,27,827/-, 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 17.08.2023, 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, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, which also came to be dismissed vide

¶17

-3-

¶18

judgment dated 22.07.2025, as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, 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.

¶19

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 complainant-Bank.

¶20

Today, during the proceedings of the case, learned counsel representing the petitioner/accused apprised this Court that total amount of compensation awarded by learned trial Court has been deposited with the complainant-Bank, which fact has been duly acknowledged by learned counsel representing the complainant-Bank. Learned counsel representing the petitioner/accused states that since petitioner has paid 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.

¶21

Mr. Narender Singh Thakur, Advocate, while putting in appearance on behalf of complainant-Bank, states that he has instructions to depose on behalf of complainant-Bank. He states that complainant-Bank has compromised the matter with the petitioner-accused and as per the compromise, complainant-Bank has received the entire amount of

¶22

-4-

¶23

compensation as full and 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. His statement is taken on record.

¶24

Having taken note of the fact that parties have compromised the matter, whereby petitioner/accused has paid entire amount of compensation awarded by Court below, coupled with the fact that complainant-Bank 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

¶25

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.

¶26

Consequently, in view of the above, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and sentence dated 22.07.2025 and 17.08.2023, passed by the Courts below are quashed and set aside and the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charge framed

¶27

-5-

¶28

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

¶29

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶30

April 07, 2026 (Rajeev Raturi)

Neeta Ram v. H.P State Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeta Ram v. H.P State Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank

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

Dinesh Chander Sharma Vs State of Hp

Bhagat Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs Ramesh Sharma

Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd. Vs Mohd. Vajid

Ashvjot Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

Sanjay Ranjta Vs Kirti Pal

Rajesh Kumar Vs Chander Mohan