[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Desh Raj vs Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank on 24 February, 2026
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Revision No.111 of 2026
Date of Decision: 24.02.2026
.
__________________________________________________________________________
Desh Raj .........Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank .......Respondent
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
of
__________________________________________________________________________
For the Petitioner: Mr. Gurinder Singh Parmar, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate.
_________________________________________________________________________________
rt
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
By way of instant application filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, prayer has been made by the applicant for condonation of
delay in filing the accompanying criminal revision petition, which is barred
by limitation.
2. Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate, representing the
non-applicant/respondent, states that he does not intend to file reply to the
application and has no objection in case, prayer made in the application is
allowed.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
averments contained in the application, which is duly supported by
affidavit, this Court is convinced and satisfied that delay in maintaining the
accompanying criminal revision petition is neither intentional nor willful,
.
rather same has occurred on account of circumstances which were
completely beyond the control of the applicant and as such, same deserves
to be condoned.
4. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the application, delay in
of
filing the petition, which in my considered view, has sufficiently been
explained, is condoned. The application stands disposed of.
5. Criminal Revision Petition be registered.
rt
6. Instant criminal revision petition, lays challenge to judgment
dated 01.05.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Palampur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.63 of
2023, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
17.08.2023, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Jaisinghpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Complaint
No.8-III/2022, titled "Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank Vs. Desh Raj
Proprietor M/S Dogra Karyana Store", whereby the learned trial Court, while
holding the petitioner-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 three months and pay compensation to the tune of
.
Rs.1,20,000/- to the complainant.
7. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are
that complainant sanctioned loan to the tune of ₹5,00,000/- in favour of
petitioner, who further with a view to discharge his liability issued Cheque
of
amounting to ₹1,00,000/-, but fact remains that aforesaid cheque on its
presentation, was dishonoured. Since petitioner-accused failed to make the
payment good within
rt 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.
8. 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, sentenced him as per the description given herein
above.
9. 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, Palampur, District Kangra,
Himachal Pradesh, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated
01.05.2025, 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.
10. Before matter at hand could be heard and decided on its own
of
merits, learned counsel representing the petitioner stated before this Court
that accused has deposited sum of ₹5,00,000/-in the respondent-Bank
under One Time Settlement Scheme and thereafter, he has been issued
rt
NOC, suggestive of the fact that respondent-Bank shall have no objection in
case he is acquitted of the charges framed against him under Section 138
of the Act. Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate, representing the respondent-Bank,
sought time to have instructions and accordingly, this Court adjourned the
matter for today's date.
11. Mr. Khajuria, Advocate, representing the respondent-Bank,
fairly states that besides depositing sum of ₹5,00,000/-, i.e. the loan
amount, petitioner has also deposited litigation charges and as such,
respondent-Bank shall have no objection in case prayer made on behalf of
the petitioner for compounding the offence is accepted.
12. Since it is quite apparent from the statement made by Mr.
Khajuria, Advocate, that as of today, no amount is due against the
.
petitioner, who admittedly had issued Cheque amounting to ₹1,00,000/- in
favour of respondent-Bank with a view to discharge his liability towards
loan amount of ₹5,00,000/-, this Court sees no impediment in accepting
the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for compounding of offence,
of
while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act as well as in terms of
guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu V.
Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663, wherein it has been categorically
rt
held that Court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, can
proceed to compound the offence even after recording of conviction.
13. Consequently, in view of the above, present matter is ordered to
be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and sentence dated
01.05.2025 and 17.08.2023, passed by the Courts below are quashed and
set aside and the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charge framed
against him under Section 138 of the Act. Interim order, if any, is vacated.
Bail bonds, if any, are discharged.
14. Since respondent/Bank was compelled to engage in
unwarranted litigation with the petitioner/accused for realization of its own
money, petitioner-accused is directed to deposit 10% of the Cheque amount
with the H.P. State Legal Service Authority as compounding fee, within a
period of six weeks, failing which, petitioner/accused shall render himself
.
liable for penal consequences as well as Contempt of Court.
February 24, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
(Rajeev Raturi)
of
rt
