Vidya Devi Vs Hpmfdc

Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, lays challenge to judgment dated 10.09.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No.104-S/10 of 2024, affirming the judgment of conviction dated 13.06.2024 and order of sentence dated 18.06.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in criminal case No.968/2021, whereby court below, while holding petitioner-accused (in short ‘ accused ’) guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short ‘Act’ ) convicted and sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- to the respondent/complainant (in short

¶13

‘complainant’ ).

¶14

2

¶15

Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act in the competent court of law, alleging therein that accused with a view to discharge her lawful liability issued cheque bearing No.504236 amounting to Rs.2,38,800/- in favour of the complainant, however, the same was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the bank account of the accused. Since accused failed to make the payment good within the time stipulated in the legal notice, complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act before the competent Court of law.

¶16

Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 13.06.2024/ 18.06.2024, held the accused guilty of having committed offence under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced her as per the description given hereinabove.

¶17

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, accused preferred an appeal in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, H.P., which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 10.09.2024, as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, accused has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, seeking therein her acquittal after setting aside the judgments of conviction recorded by the learned Courts below.

¶18

3

¶19

Before case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merit, parties have entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them.

¶20

After having entered into compromise, accused filed Cr.M.P No.1677 of 2026 under Section 147 of the Act, praying therein to compound the offence. Ms. Shashi Kiran, learned counsel for the complainant, while fairly acknowledging the factum with regard to compromise arrived inter se parties, on instructions of the complainant, states that complainant has received the entire cheque amount of Rs.2,38,800/- as full and final settlement, as such, complainant shall have no objection in compounding the offence. Her statement is taken on record.

¶21

Ms. Uma Manta, learned counsel for the accused, states that entire cheque amount of Rs.2,38,800/- has already been paid to the complainant as full and final settlement, which fact has been fairly acknowledged by Ms. Shashi Kiran, learned counsel for the complainant.

¶22

Since parties have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them, as has been taken note hereinabove, coupled with the fact that complainant has no objection in compounding the offence, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the accused for compounding the offence, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act as well as in terms of guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Cou rt in Damodar S. Prabhu V. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663 , wherein it

¶23

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.

¶24

4

¶25

Consequently, in view of the discussion made hereinabove as well as law taken into consideration, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction 10.09.2024 & 13.06.2024 and order of sentence dated 18.06.2024, passed by the Courts below are quashed and set-aside and the accused is acquitted of the charge framed against her under Section 138 of the Act. Interim order, if any, is vacated. Bail bonds, if any, discharged. The petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any.

¶26

Since complainant was compelled to engage in unwarranted litigation with the accused for realization of its own amount, accused is directed to deposit Rs.10,000/- as litigation charges payable to the complainant within a period of eight weeks, failing which, she shall render herself liable for penal consequences as well as contempt of court.

¶27

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge

¶28

May 07, 2026 (sunil)

Vidya Devi v. Hpmfdc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vidya Devi v. Hpmfdc

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

Govind Ram Vs State of Hp

Manik Kumar Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Mars Bottlers Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Pratap Singh Vs Hdfc Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Munish Kumar Vs State of Hp

Mohan Singh Vs Bharat Singh and Anr.