IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.1090 of 2025 Date of Decision: 07.05.2026 _______________________________________________________

Pratap Singh …….Petitioner Versus HDFC Bank Ltd. & Anr.

… Respondents Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? ¹ Ye s.

For the Petitioner: Mr. Arvind Negi, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate.

_______________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):

Through instant petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner-accused (in short “accused”) for quashing and setting aside the Criminal Complaint No.613 of 2018 and the order dated 28.09.2024 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, whereby an application filed by the accused under Section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act (in short “Act”) for compounding the offence came to be rejected.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record are that respondent-complainant-bank (in short “complainant-bank”) filed a

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

complaint under Section 138 of the Act in the competent court of law, alleging therein that accused with a view to discharge Phis lawful liability issued cheque amounting to Rs.3,80,000/- in favour of the complainant, however, the same was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the bank account of the acc used. Since accused failed to make the payment good withino 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. However, before same could be taken to its logical end, accused filed an application under Soection 147 of the Act, praying therein to compound the offence oCn the ground that entire cheque amount has been paid. It came to be stated at the behest of the accused that sum of Rs.2,40,000/- was deposited in the bank on 19.09.2021 and sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was deposited in the bank on 11.08.2022. Though icheque was issued for a sum of Rs.3,80,000/-, but accused deposited sum of Rs.3,90,000/- after filing of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act. However, Court below proceeded to reject the application on the ground that complainant had not consented to the compromise and same could not be arrived at without its consent. If the order dated 28.09.2024 passed by the Court below is perused in its entirety, factum with regard to receipt of Rs.3,90,000/- was duly acknowledged by the complainant-bank. However, it came to be argued at the behest of the complainant-bank that aforesaid amount was not towards cheque, rather same was deposited in the loan aPccount of the accused. In afore background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for quashing of complaint as well as order dated 28.09.2024, as detailed hereinabove .

3. Precisely, the grouse of the accused, as has been highlighted in the petition and furthe r canvassed by Mr. Arvind Negi, learned counsel representing the accused, is that once it stands duly established on record that accused had deposited sum of Rs.3,90,000/- agaionst the cheque amount of Rs.3,80,000/-, there was no occasionC, if any, for the Court below to reject the prayer made on behalf of the accused for compounding the offence. Mr. Negi further submitted that amount was deposited immediately after filing of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, but yet complainant-bank, iwith a view to harass the accused, refused to compound the offence.

He submitted that once entire cheque amount had been paid that too during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act, no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the complaint alive, rather same could have been disposed of as compounded. Mr. Negi, learned counsel for the accus