IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP No.2249 of 2026 in Cr.R. No.16 of 2024 Date of Decision: 03.06.2026 __________________________________________________________________________

Surjeet Kumar ……...Applicant/Petitioner Versus H.P. State Cooperative Bank Ltd. …....Non-applicant/Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioner: Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Mr. Abhishek Nagta, Advocate, vice Mr.

Pramod Singh Thakur, Advocate.

_________________________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

By way of instant application filed under Section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act, prayer has been made by the applicant- accused for compounding of offence alleged to have been committed under Section 138 of the Act.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that 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 stating therein that accused had issued cheque bearing No.332087 dated 14.6.2023 amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- in favour of the complainant, however same on its presentation to the bank concerned was dishonored vide memo dated 17.6.2013 with remarks “Account Closed”. Immediately, after receipt of aforesaid return memo, complainant served legal notice dated 26.6.2013 upon the accused, thereby calling upon him to make the payment good within stipulated time, but since accused failed to do the needful, complainant had no option but to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act in the competent Court of law.

3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dateHd 10.01.2023, held the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and pay compensation to the tune of ₹2,50,000/- to the respondent-complainant.

4. Though, at the first instance, accused preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, however, same was dismissed vide judgment dated 01.11.2023. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment passed by learned first appellate Court, applicant-accused preferred Criminal Revision No.16 of 2024 in this Court, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 20.05.2026.

i5. Since after passing of aforesaid judgment dated 20.05.2026, applicant-accused compromised the matter with the complainant, whereby accused has agreed to pay sum of ₹1,25,000/- by way of demand draft and amount lying deposited with the 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.

6. Mr. Abhishek Nagta, Advocate, vice Mr. Pramod Singh Thakur, 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, sum of ₹1,25,000/- has been handed over to the complainant-Bank in the shape of demand draft and in case sum of ₹1,25,000/- lying deposited withH the learned trial Court is ordered to be released in favour of complainant-Bank, complainant-Bank shall have no objection in case the judgments of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Courts below are quashed and set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge framed against him. However, he states that some amount on account of litigation charges may be awarded in favour of complainant, because it was unnecessarily dragged into litigation fo