Rajesh Kumar Vs Chander Mohan

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. Revision No.203 of 2026 Date of Decision: 07.04.2026

__________________________________________________________________________ Rajesh Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus Chander Mohan

¶5

…....Respondent

¶6

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Pritam Singh Chandel, Advocate.

¶7

For the Respondent: In person.

¶8

_________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶9

Cr.MP(M) No.400 of 2026

¶10

By way of instant application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, prayer has been made on behalf of the applicant/ petitioner for condonation of delay in maintaining the accompanying criminal revision petition, which is barred by limitation.

¶11

Having carefully perused the averments contained in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, this Court finds no impediment in accepting the prayer, especially when delay caused in maintaining accompanying criminal revision petition does not appear to be intentional or willful, rather same has occurred on account of circumstances, which were completely beyond the control of the applicant/petitioner, as such, the same deserves to be condoned.

¶12

In view of above, delay, which has been otherwise sufficiently explained is condoned. The application is disposed of.

¶13

2

¶14

Cr. Revision No.203 of 2026

¶15

Instant criminal revision petition filed under Sections 438 and 442 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, lays challenge to judgment dated 29.07.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No.14 of 2024 affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.01.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., in criminal complaint No.774-3 of 2021, whereby learned Court below, while holding petitioner-accused (in short “ accused ”) guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short ‘ Act ’) convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,26,000/- to the respondent/complainant (for short ‘ complainant ’).

¶16

Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act in the competent court of law, alleging therein that accused with a view to discharge his lawful liability issued cheque bearing No.000592 amounting to Rs.1,12,000/-, however, the same was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the bank account of the accused. Since accused failed to make the payment good within the time stipulated in the legal notice, complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act before the competent Court of law.

¶17

3

¶18

Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment dated 04.01.2024, held the accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as per the description given hereinabove.

¶19

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Court below, accused preferred an appeal in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 29.07.2024, as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, accused has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, seeking therein for 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 merit, accused has amicably settled the matter with the complainant, whereby he has paid the entire amount of compensation in terms of judgment passed by the learned Court below to the complainant.

¶21

After having entered into compromise, accused has filed an application under Section 147 of the Act, praying therein to compound the offence and acquit the accused from the charges framed against him.

¶22

Complainant, who is present in Court, fairly admits factum with regard to compromise. He states that he of his volition and without

¶23

4

¶24

any external pressure, has entered into compromise with the accused, whereby he has received the entire amount of compensation awarded by the learned Court below from the accused. He states that on account of receipt of compensation amount awarded in his favour, he shall have no objection for compounding the offence.

¶25

Since it is not in dispute that parties have entered into compromise, whereby entire compensation amount has been paid to the complainant by the accused, there appears to be no impediment for this court in 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 ,

¶26

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.

¶27

Consequently, in view of the discussion made hereinabove as well as law taken into consideration, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and sentence dated 29.07.2024 and 04.01.2024, passed by the learned Courts below are quashed and set-aside and the 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, discharged. The petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any.

¶28

5

¶29

Since complainant was compelled to engage in unwarranted litigation with the accused for realization of his own amount, accused is directed to deposit Rs.5,000/- with the HP State Legal Service Authority as compounding fee and Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges payable to the complainant within a period of eight weeks, failing which, he shall render himself liable for penal consequences as well as contempt of court.

¶30

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge

¶31

April 07, 2026 (sunil)

Rajesh Kumar v. Chander Mohan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar v. Chander Mohan

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

Himachal Pradesh University Vs Sanjeet Sharma