Kamla Devi Vs Golf Link Finance and Resorts Limitesd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Criminal Revision No. 640 of 2024

Date of Decision: 02.06.2026

________________________________________ Kamla Devi	_______________ …….Petitioner
Versus
Golf Link Finance & Resorts Pvt. Ltd.	… Respondent
________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹	_______________
For the Petitioner: Ms. Anikta, Proxy c Jagat Pal, Advocate	ounsel vice Ms. .
For the Respondent: Mr. Subhash Chan vice Ms. Seema Advocate.	der, Proxy counsel Kaushal Guleria,
_________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):	______________

¶5

Instant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438

¶6

of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, lays challenge to judgment dated 22.05.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (CBI Court), Shimla District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.2-S/10 of 2024, affirming judgment of conviction dated 13.12.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.6 and order of sentence dated 14.12.2018 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Case No.99-3 of 2017,whereby

¶7

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶8

2

¶9

learned trial Court, while holding the petitioner-accused (hereinafter, ‘accused’) guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, (for short ‘Act’) convicted and sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,80,000/to the respondent-complainant ( hereinafter, ‘complainant’).

¶10

Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record are that the respondent-complainant- instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act in the competent Court of law, alleging therein that cheque bearing No. 662622, dated 10.02.2017, amounting to Rs.1,10,350/-, drawn at UCO Bank, Ram Bazaar, Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, having been issued by the petitioner-accused towards discharge of her lawful liability was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the bank account of the accused. Since, despite having received legal notice, accused failed to make the payment good well within stipulated time, complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act in the competent Court of law, which subsequently on the basis of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, held the accused guilty of having committed

¶11

3

¶12

offence punishable under S. 138 of Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced her, as per description given herein above.

¶13

Though, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court, accused preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (CBI Court) Shimla, District Shimla, H.P, but same was dismissed vide judgment dated 22.05.2024. In the aforesaid background, petitioner-accused has approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for her acquittal after setting aside judgments of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court as well as Appellate Court.

¶14

Vide order dated 30.08.2024, this Court suspended the substantive sentence imposed upon the accused by learned trial Court, subject to the petitioner-accused depositing 50% of the compensation amount and furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 20,000/-, with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. Aforesaid order has been duly complied with.

¶15

Before the case at hand could be heard and decided on

¶16

its own merit, petitioner has entered into the compromise with the respondent/Complainant, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them.

¶17

4

¶18

Today, during the proceedings of the case, learned counsel representing the petitioner stated that the petitioner has entered into the compromise with the respondent-complainant, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably. He stated that sum of Rs. 85,000/- has been already paid to the respondent-complainant, whereas sum of Rs. 90,000/- lying deposited with the learned trial Court can be ordered to be released in favour of the respondent-complainant and thereafter, this Court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, may proceed to compound the offence and acquit the accused of charge framed against her under Section 138 of the Act. He further stated that sum of Rs. 5000/- has been handed over to the respondent/complainant in cash today in the Court.

¶19

Mr. Subash Chander, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-complainant submits that respondent-complainant shall have no objection in compounding the offence in case, amount lying deposited with the learned trial Court is ordered to be released in its favour.

¶20

Though, no application under Section 147 of the Act has been filed by the petitioner for compounding the offence, however, this Court has sufficient power to compound the offence under Section 147 of the Act, especially when the complainant is ready and

¶21

5

¶22

willing for the same, as has been fairly stated by the learned counsel for respondent- complainant.

¶23

Having taken note of the fact that entire amount of compensation has been paid to the respondent-complainant and 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.

¶24

Consequently, in view of the above, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court as well as Appellate Court are set-aside and the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charge framed against her under Section 138 of the Act. Bail bonds, if any, are discharged. Interim order, if any, is vacated.

¶25

Learned trial Court is directed to release the amount lying deposited with it in favour of the respondent-complainant, by remitting the same in its bank account, details whereof shall be furnished by

¶26

6

¶27

learned counsel for the respondent-complainant within a period of one

¶28

week.

¶29

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 02,2026 (shankar)

Kamla Devi v. Golf Link Finance and Resorts Limitesd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamla Devi v. Golf Link Finance and Resorts Limitesd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vivek Katoch Vs Lasha Enterprises and Another

Vineet Rathor Vs State of Hp and Others

Ganesh Kumar and Another Vs State of Hp and Others

Munna Singh and Another Vs State of Hp and Another

Naresh Kumar Sharma Vs Khem Chand

Abhishek Vs State of Hp