Geeta Ram vs H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd.

Chirag Bhanu Singh, Judge (Oral)

Notice. Mr. Narender Singh Thakur, Advocate, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the non-applicant/respondent.

No reply is intended to be filed on behalf of the non-applicant/respondent.

Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection to the delay being condoned.

For the reasons stated in the application and the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the delay of 116 days in filing the revision is condoned.

Application is allowed and disposed of.

Be registered.

The petitioner has preferred the present revision assailing the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No. 38/2025, dated 01.06.2026, whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.02.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, H.P., in Criminal Case No. 220/3 of 2023, stands affirmed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act), whereby the petitioner stands convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay compensation of Rs.60,000/- (Rs. Sixty Thousand Only) to the complainant. In default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

In pursuance to the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the present petitioner is stated to be lodged in Model Central Jail, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P.

It transpires that during the pendency of the present proceedings, on 23.09.2026, as one-time settlement, the respondent/Bank has finally settled the lis with the petitioner. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 3,82,074/- (Rs. Three Lakhs Eighty Two Thousand Seventy Four Only) with the respondent/Bank as full and final settlement, not only qua the cheque but also qua the entire loan amount. A certificate in this behalf has been annexed along with the petition as Annexure P-3.

Learned counsel for the respondent/Bank confirms that, as one-time full and final settlement, the petitioner has indeed paid an amount of Rs.3,82,074/- (Rs. Three Lakhs Eighty Two Thousand Seventy Four Only) to the respondent/bank and as such, once the amount is paid, the person may be allowed to compound the offence as per the provisions of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Seemingly, the parties have now buried the hatchet.

Since the parties have not only settled the matter but the respondet/bank has also received the full and final settlement of the claim, the revision deserves to be allowed and the petitioner is entitled to be acquitted. In this behalf, reliance can be placed on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled as K.M. Ibrahim versus K.P. Mohammed and another, (2010) 1 SCC 798.

It would be apposite to reproduce para-9 of the K.M. Ibrahim's case, which reads as under:-

It is thus crystal clear that, keeping in view the mandate of the aforesaid judgment and the provisions of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, there is no bar for the parties in compounding the offence under the provisions of Section 138 of the N.I. Act, even at the stage of present proceedings.

Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid judgment and the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, the parties having indeed buried their differences, and the petitioner/accused having made the full and final settlement of the claim, based on a one-time settlement offered by the respondent bank, the parties are alllowed to compound the offence, and, as a sequel, the judgments passed by the learned Courts below are quashed and set aside. The accused is acquitted of the charges. In case the petitioner is not required in any other case, he may be released. Release warrants be prepared accordingly.

Accordingly, the petition is disposed off in the aforesaid terms, pending application(s) so also, if any.