SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2533

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
Vinod Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Santoshi Devi AND ANR – Respondent
CR.R/557/2025



Petitioner Advocates:Anil Kumar ,Respondent Advocate: Vikas Chauhan AG Deepica Gautam

##PAGE1##

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, Judgef.

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

13.08.20h25, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarkaghat,

Disgtrict 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 fro.m 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 Nagar, Disotrict 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, was diushonoured. Since petitioner-accused failed to

make the payment goood 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-accused. 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 could beo 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. Counselu representing the petitioner, on instructions

from the petitioner, staotes 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

respondehnt/complainant outside the Court. He states that since

petitioner/accused has agreed to pay entire compensation amount, as per

compromise, detailed hereinabove, this Court, while exercising power u

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top