IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP No.1773 of 2026 in Cr.R. No.857 of 2024 Date of Decision: 13..05.2026 ____________________________________________________________P______________

Sh. Bhagirath ……...Applicant/Petitioner Versus Punjab National Bank …....Non-applicant/Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajinder Thakur, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Mr. Jiten der P. Ranote, Advocate.

___________________________________t______________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

By way of instant application filed under Section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha SanChita, 2023, prayer has been made by the applicant-accused for compounding of offence alleged to have been committed under Section

138 of the Act.

2g. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are ithat non-applicant/respondent/complainant (for short ‘complainant’)

filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘Act’) in the competent court of law, alleging therein alleging therein that accused applied for loan amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant’s bank and loan was sanctioned in the name of accused on 15.09.2015. Afore loan was to be repaid/returned by the accused as per terms and conditions of loan agreement. However, on account of default in repayment, loan account of the accused was declared as NPA and sum of Rs.2,14,272/- along with interest was shown to be outstanding in his account. With a view to discharge his lawful liability and regularization of his loan account, though accused issued cheque bearing No.025601 dated 01.07.2018 amounting to Rs.60,000/-, drawn on Punjab National Bank, Branch Arki, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, but aforesaid cheque on its presentation was returned back vide mHemo dated 06.07.2018 with the remarks “Insufficient Funds”. Since accused failed to make the payment good within the stipulated period despite his having received legal notice dated 28.07.2018, complainant had no option, but to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of tthe Act in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Arki, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh.

3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 16.01.2024/29.01.2024, held the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed o ffence under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay compensation to the tune of ₹80,000/- to the respondent-

complainant.

4. Though, at the first instance, accused preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, however, same was dismissed vide judgment dated 12.09.2024. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment passed by learned first appellate Court, applicant-accused preferred Criminal Revision No.857 of 2024 in this Court, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 31.03.2026.

5. Since after passing of aforesaid judgment dated 31.03.2026, applicant-accused compromised the matter with the complainant, whereby accused has deposited sum of ₹40,000/- with the complainant-Bank and amount lying deposited with the Registry of this CHourt as well as learned trial Court has also been agreed to be released in favour of complainant- Bank, applicant-accused has approached this Court in the instant application praying therein for compounding of the offence under Section

147 of the Act. t

6. Mr. Jitender Pal Ranote, Advocate, while putting in appearance on behalf of respondent-Bank, states that he has instructions to depose on behalf of respondent-Bank. He states that complainant-Bank has compromised the matter with the petitioner-accused and as per the compromise , complainant-Bank has received sum of ₹40,000/- and in c