CR.R/13/2026 of AJAY KANWAR Vs HDFC BANK LTD AND ANOTHER on 21 August 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. Revision No.13 of 2026

Date of Decision: 21.08.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Ajay Kanwar

……...Petitioner Versus HDFC Bank Limited and Another

…....Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioner: Mr. Arvind Negi, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Ms. Kamlesh Kumari, Advocate, vice Mr. H.S. Rana and Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Advocates. __________________________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, lays challenge to judgment dated 06.10.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nahan, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.19-N/10 of 2025, titled Ajay Kanwar Vs. HDFC Bank Limited and Another, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.01.2025, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, whereby the learned trial Court while holding the petitioner-accused (hereinafter, ‘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 one year and pay compensation to the tune of ₹10,00,000/- to the complainant.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that respondent-complainant (hereinafter, ‘complainant’) instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act, in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, alleging therein that accused with a view to discharge his liability issued Cheque for a sum of ₹9,85,000/-, but fact remains that aforesaid Cheque on its presentation, was dishonoured. Since petitioner-accused failed to make the payment good within 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.

3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 28.01.2025, held the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him, as per the description given hereinabove.

4. 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, Nahan, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated

06.10.2025, as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, 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.

5. Before case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merits, parties have entered into compromise, whereby respondent/complainant has agreed to settle the dispute with the petitioner/accused. Counsel representing the petitioner states that since entire amount in question has been already paid to the complainant-Bank, as per compromise, detailed hereinabove, this Court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act may proceed to compound the offence.

6. Ms. Kamlesh Kumari, learned counsel representing the respondent/complainant, states that she has instructions to depose on behalf of respondent/complainant. She states that since complainant has compromised the matter with the petitioner-accused and as per compromise, respondent/complainant-Bank has received entire amount in question from the petitioner-accused, complainant-Bank shall have no objection in case the judgments of conviction passed by the learned Courts below are quashed and set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge framed against him. However, she states that some amount on account of litigation charges may be awarded in favour of complainant, because it was unnecessarily dragged into litigation for realization of its own money. His statement is taken on record.

7. Since parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them, as has been taken note hereinabove, coupled with the fact that respondent/complainant has no objection in compounding the offence, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for compounding of offence, 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 held that Court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, can proceed to compound the offence even after recording of conviction by the Courts below.

8. Consequently, in view of the above, present matter is ordered to be compounded. Impugned judgments of conviction and sentence dated 06.10.2025 and 28.01.2025, passed by the Courts below are quashed and set aside. 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.

9. Since respondent/complainant was compelled to engage in unwarranted litigation with the petitioner/accused for realization of its own money, petitioner-accused is directed to pay a sum of ₹10,000/- as litigation charges in favour of respondent/complainant and further to deposit sum of ₹10,000/- 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.

The present petition is disposed in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Sandeep Sharma), August 21, 2026

Judge (Rajeev Raturi)