Sumitra Vs Neeraj Kumar and Another

2025:HHC:32061

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

	Cr. Revision No.	: 391 of 2025
	Decided on	: 17.09.2025
Sumitra		…Petitioner
	Versus
Neeraj Kumar & Anr.		…Respondents

¶4

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.

¶5

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶6

For the petitioner :	Petitioner in person with Mr. Arvind Negi, Advocate.
For the respondents :	Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No. 1.
	Sh. Varun Chandel, Addl. A.G. with
	Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy A.G., for respondent No. 2

¶7

Virender Singh, Judge (oral)

¶8

Petitioner – Sumitra has filed the present Criminal Revision against the judgment dated 02.05.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions JudgeII, Solan, District Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellate Court’), in Criminal Appeal No. 4ASJII/10 of 2021, titled as ‘Sumitra Vs Neeraj Kumar & Anr.’

¶9

By way of judgment dated 02.05.2025, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶10

2025:HHC:32061

¶11

2

¶12

the petitioner against the judgment of conviction, dated 28.02.2020 and order of sentence dated 29.02.2020, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’), in Criminal Comp. No. 57/3 of 2011, titled as ‘Neeraj Kumar Vs Sumitra’.

¶13

Vide judgment of conviction, dated 28.02.2020 and order of sentence dated 29.02.2020, learned trial Court has convicted the petitioner, for the offence, punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NI Act’) and sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment, for a period of three days and to pay a fine/compensation of Rs.

¶14

2,00,000/ to the complainant.

¶15

After dismissal of the appeal by the learned Appellate Court, the present Criminal Revision has been preferred.

¶16

During the pendency of the present petition, the parties have settled the matter. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed application bearing Cr.MP No. 4139 of 2025, for permitting the parties to compound the offence, on the ground that the matter has been settled between them.

¶17

2025:HHC:32061

¶18

3

¶19

Statements of the petitioner, as well as, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1, have been recorded, in which, they both have deposed that the dispute with regard to Cheque No. 0052857, dated 22.08.2011, has been settled between the parties.

¶20

Today, the accused (petitioner) is present before this Court. She has deposed that she has been convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court vide judgment of conviction, dated 28.02.2020 and order of sentence dated 29.02.2020.

¶21

Against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner had filed the appeal before the learned Appellate Court and the learned Appellate Court has dismissed her appeal. Now, she is before this Court, by way of the present Criminal Revision.

¶22

In addition to this, the accused (petitioner) has also submitted that during the pendency of the Criminal Revision, the matter has been compromised between her and the complainant. She has also deposed that she has deposited a sum of Rs. 40,000/, before the learned trial Court and she has no objection, in case the said amount is released in favour of complainant Neeraj Kumar.

¶23

2025:HHC:32061

¶24

4

¶25

The petitioneraccused has also deposed that on the basis of the said compromise, the present petition may kindly be allowed by setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, referred to above, and she may kindly be acquitted of the charge.

¶26

Learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 has also made the similar statement. He has deposed that the respondentNeeraj Kumar, has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioneraccused is acquitted by setting aside the judgment of conviction, dated 28.02.2020 and order of sentence, dated 29.02.2020. He also deposed that the amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 40,000/, deposited by the petitioneraccused, before the learned trial Court, be released in favour of respondent Neeraj Kumar.

¶27

On the basis of the above statements, one thing is clear that the matter has been settled between the parties and in pursuance of the said settlement, complainant has received the remaining amount of compensation from the petitioner.

¶28

2025:HHC:32061

¶29

5

¶30

According to the respondentcomplainant, the dispute with regard to Cheque No. 0052857 dated 22.08.2011, has been settled between the parties.

¶31

Since, the matter, with regard to cheque, in question, has been settled between the parties, as such, the application, bearing Cr.MP No.4139 of 2025, is allowed and the parties are permitted to compound the offence.

¶32

Considering the fact that the application for compounding of the offence has been allowed, the present petition is allowed and the judgment of conviction, dated 28.02.2020 and order of sentence dated 29.02.2020, passed by learned trial Court in Comp. 138 N.I. Act No. 57/3 of 2011, which has been affirmed by learned Appellate Court, in Criminal Appeal No. 4ASJII/10 of 2021, vide judgment dated 02.05.2025, are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted from the offence, punishable under Section 138 NI Act. Her personal and surety bonds are discharged.

¶33

However, this order shall be subject to deposit of 8% of the cheque amount, as compounding fee, within eight weeks from today. 50% of the compounding fee be deposited with the Member Secretary, H.P. State Legal

¶34

2025:HHC:32061

¶35

6

¶36

Services Authority, Shimla, and remaining 50% with the Chief Justice Disaster Relief Fund.

¶37

It is further clarified that if the petitioner fails to deposit the compounding fee, as ordered by this Court, within eight weeks, then, the present petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed, by reviving the judgment of conviction, dated 28.02.2020 and order of sentence dated 29.02.2020, passed by learned trial Court and in that eventuality, she shall surrender before the learned trial Court to undergo the substantive sentence, imposed upon her, by the learned trial Court.

¶38

The amount deposited by the petitioneraccused before the learned trial Court, is ordered to be released in favour of the complainant Neeraj Kumar.

¶39

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶40

(Virender Singh) Judge

¶41

17^th September, 2025

¶42

( Pramod Kumar )

Sumitra v. Neeraj Kumar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumitra v. Neeraj Kumar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anu Sharma Vs State of Hp

Mohit Sharma Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Krishan Kumar Vs State of Hp

Dinesh Janata Vs Ajay Sood

Bhupender Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Sanjeev Kumar Vs Hp Gramin Bank Bithal