IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 64 of 2026 Date of Decision: 24.02.2026 _______________________________________________________ Hukam Chand …….Petitioner Versus Gurdeep Singh & another … Respondents _______________________________________________________

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? ¹ For the Petitioner: Mr. Himanshu Thakur, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Hitesh Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

oMr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate Generals for respondent No.2/State.

_______________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):

g Instant Revision Petition filed under Section 438 read iwith Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, lays challenge to judgment dated 30.10.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.30-NL/10 of 2024, affirming the judgment of conviction dated 10.05.2024 and order of sentence dated 21.05.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.2,Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Case No.83 of 2015, whereby learned trial Court, while holding the

1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

petitioner-accused (hereinafter, ‘accused’) guilty of having committed offence punishable under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, (for short ‘Act’) convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- to respondent No.1-

complainant (hereinafter, ‘complainant’).

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that the respondent-complainant instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act in the competent Court of law, alleging therein that accused had borrowed sum of Rs.2,75,000/- from him. Though, accused with a view to discharge his liability issued cheque bearing N o.438805, dated 21.08.2015, amounting to Rs. 2, 75,000/- (Ex.C-1) payable at State Bank of Patiala, ADB Branch Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, but fact remains that same was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the bank account of the accused vide memos Ex. C-2 & C-3. Since despite having received legal notice (Ex. C-4), accused failed to make the payment good within stipulated time, complainant had no option, but to institute proceedings under Section 138 of the Act in the competent court of law, which subsequently, on the basis of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, held accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under S. 138 of Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as per description given herein above.

3. Though, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court, accused preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P, but same was dismissed vide judgment dated 30.10.2025. In the aforesaid background, accused has approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for his acquittal after setting aside judgments of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court as well as Appellate Court.

4. Before the case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merit, petitioner has entered into the compromise with the respondent/Complainant, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them.

5. As per the compromise, petitioner/ accused has paid sum of Rs. 2,45,000/- to the respondent/complainant and thereafter he has agreed for compounding of the offence. Petitioner/accused, namely Hukam Chand and respondent/complainant Gurdeep Singh have come present in Court and are being represented by their respective counsel. They of their own volition have entered into the compro