The High Court retains limited inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 to correct miscarriages of justice, but cannot enhance compensation as a second revision remedy.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for modification of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Shimla (H.P) (learned Trial Court), as affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla (learned Revisional Court) on 23.07.2025. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the complainant filed a complaint against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (“in short N.I. Act”). The learned Trial Court convicted the accuused vide judgment dated 28.06.2024 and sentenced heor to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and paCy a compensation of ₹6,70,000/- to the complainant.

3. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused filed an appeal, and the complainant filed a revision which was decided by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla (H.P), who upheld the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court and dismissed the appeal and the revision.

4. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Revisional Court, the complainant has filed the present petition, asserting that the cheque was issued in 2018 for ₹6,30,000. A compensation of ₹6,70,000 was granted, which is on the lower side. The double of the cheque amount, along with the interest @ 9% per annum from the date of issuance of the cheque, should have been awarded. Hen.ce, the present petition.

5. Mr Virender Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the learned Courts below have awarded inadequate compensation, which should be enhanced. He relied upon the judgments of Jugjit Kaur vs Rajwinder Singh 2025:PHHC:033187 in support of his submission.

6. I have given considerable thought to the subm issions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

7. It is undisputed that the petitioner had filed a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, which was dismissed. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Krishnan v. In Krishnaveni (1997) 4 SCC 241 that the High Court can intervene under Section 482 of CrPC (corresponding to Section 528 of BNSS) after the dismissal of the revision when there is a grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of the process of the Court. It was observed:

“10. Ordinarily, when revision has been barred by Section 397 (3) of the Code, a person — accused/complainant — cannot be allowed to take recourse to the revision to the High Court under Section 397 (1) or inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code since it may amount to circumvention of the provisions of Section 397 (3) or Section 397 (2) of the Code. It is seen that the High Court has suo motu power under Section 401 and continuous supervisory jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Code. So, when the High Court on examination of the record finds that there is a grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of the process of the courts or the required statutory procedure has not been complied with or there is failure of justice or order passed or sentence imposed by the Magistrate requires correction, it is but the duty of the High Court to have it corrected at the inception lest grave miscarriage of justice would ensue. It is, therefore, to meet the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process that the High Court is preserved with inherent power and would be justified, under