Disposed

Manjuli Sharma alias Riya v. Krishan Kumar

Himachal Pradesh HC2 Apr 2026CR.R/585/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Conviction under Section 138 NI Act upheld by the first appellate court was compounded before the High Court after the accused deposited the entire compensation of Rs 1,70,000 and the complainant consented. The High Court quashed both judgments, acquitted the accused, awarded Rs 5,000 litigation cost and Rs 3,000 compounding fee to the Legal Services Authority.

What did the court decide?

Offence compounded; convictions quashed; petitioner acquitted; complainant to receive Rs 1,70,000 deposit plus Rs 5,000 litigation cost; Rs 3,000 compounding fee payable to HP State Legal Services Aut

Manjuli Sharma alias Riya Vs Krishan Kumar — Cheque Dishonour | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Criminal Revision No.585 of 2025 Date of Decision: 2.4.2026

¶3

_____________________________________________________________________ Manjuli Sharma @ Riya ……...Petitioner Versus Krishan Kumar …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Naveen Awasthi, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Lokesh Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶4

Instant criminal revision petition, lays challenge to judgment dated 28.8.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2025, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.5.2025, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in Case No. 50/2020, whereby the learned trial Court while holding the petitioner-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 Rs. 1,70,000/to the complainant.

¶5

¶6

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that respondent-complainant instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act, in the competent court of law, alleging therein that accused with a view to discharge her liability issued cheque amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/in his favour, 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.

¶7

3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 31.5.2025 held the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced her as per the description given herein above.

¶8

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 first appellate court, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 28.8.2025, 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

¶9

¶10

way of instant proceedings, seeking therein her acquittal after setting aside the judgments of conviction recorded by the courts below.

¶11

5. Mr. Naveen Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused states that since petitioner has already deposited sums of Rs.51,000/- and Rs. 1,19,000/- before the learned trial Court and Registry of this Court, respectively, petitioner shall have no objection in case amount of compensation lying deposited with the learned trial Court as well as Registry of this Court is ordered to be released in favour of the respondent/complainant, and as such, this Court while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, can compound the offence and acquit the accused.

¶12

6. While fairly acknowledging factum with regard to compromise, Mr. Lokesh Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. G.R. Palsra, appearing on behalf of the respondent-complainant, states that his client shall have no objection in compounding the offence in case afore amount lying deposited before the learned trial Court and Registry of this Court is ordered to be released in favour of the respondent/complainant. He further submitted that since respondent-complainant was unnecessarily dragged into litigation for realization of his own money, this Court may also award some litigation cost.

¶13

¶14

7. Having taken note of the fact that entire amount of compensation stands paid to the respondent-complainant and respondent 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 Cour t in

¶15

Damodar S. Prabhu V. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663 , wherein it

¶16

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.

¶17

8. Consequently, in view of the above, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and sentence dated 31.5.2025 and 28.8.2025, passed by the courts below are quashed and setaside and the 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. Since respondent-complainant was unnecessarily compelled to institute the legal proceedings against the accused that too for realization of his own money, this court deems it fit to direct the accused to pay sum of Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost, to the respondent-complainant, payable within six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Apart from above, petitioner shall also be liable to pay 3,000/- as

¶18

¶19

compounding fee with the Himachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, within aforesaid period. It is made clear that in case, needful is not done within the time stipulated by this court, accused besides rendering herself liable for penal consequences would also invite contempt proceedings. Registry of this Court as well as learned trial court are also directed to release the amount deposited by the accused on filing appropriate application, detailing therein saving bank account details of the complainant. The petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any.

¶20

April 2, 2026 (manjit)

¶21

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

Manjuli Sharma alias Riya v. Krishan Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjuli Sharma alias Riya v. Krishan Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Kumar Vs State of Hp

Rashish Khan alias Raees Vs State of Hp

Dinesh Kumar Vs H.P. Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank

Union Bank of India Vs Tota Ram Alias Totu Ram

Paramjit Arora Vs State of Hp

Rajesh Kumar Vs Tej Ram