IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No.763 of 2024 Date of Decision: 24.2.2026 _____________________________________________________________________

Hansa Devi ……...Petitioner Versus Diwakar Dutt …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioner: Ms. Yogita Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Naveen K.

Dass, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Ms. Shikha Chauhan, Advocate.

___________________________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Instant criminal revision petition, lays challenge to judgment dated 28.8.2024, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No. RBT 79-S/10 of 2024/22, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.7.2022/1.8.2022, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-

i7, Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Complaint Case No.119-3 of 2018/17, 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 her to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,30,000/- to the respondent-

complainant (herein after referred to as the “complainant” ).

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that 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 aomounting to Rs. 4,00,000/- in favour of the complainant, but fact remains that the aforesaid cheque on its presentation, was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. Since accused failed to makeu 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.

3. Learned trial Court on the basis of pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 23.7.2022/1.8.2022, held the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, sentenced him as per the description given herein above.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by the court below, accused preferred an appeal before learned First Appellate Court, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment 28.8.2024, as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, present petitioner-accused has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, seeking therein her acquittal after setting aside the judgments of conviction recorded by the courts below. .

5. Vide order dated 21.11.2024, this Court suspended the substantive sentence imposed by the lear ned trial Court subject to applicant’s depositing 50% of the coompensation amount before the trial court within four weeks. Only 20% of the compensation amount was deposited, but today during proceedings of the case, learned counsel representing the respoundent-complainant on instructions states that he has received the entire amount of compensation and as such, has no objection in case offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner is ordered to be compounded while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that though she has no specific information with regard to compromise, if any, arrived inter-se parties but once respondent-complainant himself has stated that he has received the entire amount of compensation, this Court may proceed to pass appropriate orders.

7. Having taken note of the fact that entire amount of compensation stands received by the respondent-complainant, coupled with the fact that and he has no obje