IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
2026:HHC:17102
Cr. Revision No.557 of 2025
Vinod Kumar ……...Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Santoshi Devi and Another …....Respondents
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, J
14.05.2026
For the Petitioner: Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Vikas Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for State.
(Sandeep Sharma)
Judge
May 14, 2026
(Rajeev Raturi)
2026:HHC:17102
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No.557 of 2025 Date of Decision: 14.05.2026
__________________________________________________________________________
Vinod Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus
Smt. Santoshi Devi and Another …....Respondents Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Jufdge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Vikas Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy
Advocates General, for State.
__________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 438 read
with Section 442 of the BNSS, lays challenge to judgment dated 13.h08.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarkaghat,
gDistrict Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, Camp at Joginder Nagar, in Criminal Appeal No.24/2024, titled Vinod Kumar Vs. Smt. Santoshi Devi, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.11.2024, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, whereby the learned trial Court while holding the petitioner-accused (hereinafter, ‘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
::: Downloaded on - 18/05/2026 23:28:09 :::CIS
##PAGE2##2026:HHC:17102 -2-
imprisonment for a period of one year and pay compensation to the tune of ₹60,000/- to the complainant. P
2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge. from the record are that respondent-complainant (hereinafter, ‘complainant’) instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act, in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Joginder Nagaor, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, alleging therein that accused with a view to discharge his liability issued Cheque for a sum of Rs.38,388/-, but fact remains that aforesaid Cheque on its presentation, wuas dishonoured. Since petitioner-accused failed to make the paymeont 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. hLearned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 06.11.2024, held the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him, as per the
description given hereinabove.
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 Additional Sessions Judge, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, Camp at Joginder Nagar, which also came to be
::: Downloaded on - 18/05/2026 23:28:09 :::CIS
##PAGE3##2026:HHC:17102 -3-
dismissed vide judgment dated 13.08.2025, as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, petitioner-accus.ed has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, seeking therein his acquittal after
setting aside the judgments of conviction recorded by the Courts below.
5. Before case at hand couold be heard and decided on its own merits, parties have entered into compromise, whereby respondent/complainant has agreed to settle the dispute with the petitioner/accused. Couunsel representing the petitioner, on instructions from the petitioneor, states that amount lying deposited with the trial Court has been agreed to be released in favour of respondent/complainant and besides above, he has already paid sum of Rs.42,000/- to the reshpondent/complainant outside the Court. He states that since petitioner/accused has agreed to pay entire compensation amount, as per compromise, detailed hereina
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.