2025:HHC:32061 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No.  : 391 of 2025 Decided on    : 17.09.2025 Sumitra …Petitioner Versus Neeraj Kumar & Anr. …Respondents The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Petitioner in person with Mr. Arvind Negi, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr.   Ajay   Kumar,   Advocate,   for respondent No. 1. Sh. Varun Chandel, Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy A.G., for respondent No. 2 Virender Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner   –   Sumitra   has   filed   the   present Criminal Revision against the judgment dated 02.05.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge­II, Solan, District Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellate Court’), in Criminal Appeal No. 4­ASJ­II/10 of 2021, titled as ‘Sumitra Vs Neeraj Kumar & Anr.’ 2. By   way   of   judgment   dated   02.05.2025,   the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:32061 the petitioner against the judgment of conviction, dated 28.02.2020   and   order   of   sentence   dated   29.02.2020, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’), in Criminal Comp. No. 57/3 of 2011, titled as ‘Neeraj Kumar Vs Sumitra’. 3. Vide judgment of conviction, dated 28.02.2020 and   order   of   sentence   dated   29.02.2020,   learned   trial Court   has   convicted   the   petitioner,   for   the   offence, punishable   under   Section   138   of   the   Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NI Act’) and sentenced   her   to   undergo   simple   imprisonment,   for   a period of three days and to pay a fine/compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/­ to the complainant. 4. After   dismissal   of   the   appeal   by   the   learned Appellate Court, the present Criminal Revision has been preferred. 5. During the pendency of the present petition, the parties have settled the matter.  Thereafter, the petitioner has filed application bearing Cr.MP No. 4139 of 2025, for permitting   the  parties  to   compound  the  offence,  on  the ground that the matter has been settled between them. 3 2025:HHC:32061 6. Statements   of   the   petitioner,   as   well   as,   the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1, have been recorded, in which, they both have deposed that the dispute with regard   to   Cheque   No.   0052857,   dated   22.08.2011,   has been settled between the parties. 7. Today, the accused (petitioner) is present before this Court. She has deposed that she has been convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court vide judgment of conviction, dated 28.02.2020 and order of sentence dated 29.02.2020. 8. Against   the   said   judgment   of   conviction   and order of sentence, the petitioner had filed the appeal before the   learned   Appellate   Court   and   the   learned   Appellate Court has dismissed her appeal.   Now, she is before this Court, by way of the present Criminal Revision. 9. In addition to this, the accused (petitioner) has also submitted that during the pendency of the Criminal Revision, the matter has been compromised between her and the complainant.  She has also deposed that she has deposited a sum of Rs. 40,000/­, before the learned trial Court and she has no objection, in case the said amount is released in favour of complainant Neeraj Kumar. 4 2025:HHC:32061 10. The  petitioner­accused  has  also deposed that on the basis of the said compromise, the present petition may kindly be allowed by setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, referred to above, and she may kindly be acquitted of the charge. 11. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 has also made   the   similar   statement. He   has   deposed   that   the respondent­Neeraj Kumar, has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner­accused is acquitted   by   setting   aside   the   judgment   of   conviction, dated 28.02.2020 and order of sentence, dated 29.02.2020. He also deposed that the amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 40,000/­, deposited by the petitioner­accused, before the learned trial Court, be released in favour of respondent­ Neeraj Kumar. 12. On the basis of the above statements, one thing is   clear   that   the   matter   has   been   settled   between   the parties   and   in   pursuance   of   the   said   settlement, complainant   has   received   the   remaining   amount   of compensation from the petitioner. 5 2025:HHC:32061 13. According to the respondent­complainant, the dispute   with   regard   to   Cheque   No.   0052857   dated 22.08.2011, has been settled between the parties. 14. Since,   the   matter,   with   regard   to   cheque,   in question, has been settled between the parties, as such, the application, bearing Cr.MP No.4139 of 2025, is allowed and the parties are permitted to compound the offence. 15. Considering   the   fact   that   the   application   for compounding of the offence has been allowed, the present petition is allowed and the judgment of conviction, dated 28.02.2020   and   order   of   sentence   dated   29.02.2020, passed by learned trial Court in Comp. 138 N.I. Act No. 57/3   of   2011,   which   has   been   affirmed   by   learned Appellate   Court,   in   Criminal   Appeal   No.   4­ASJ­II/10   of 2021, vide judgment dated 02.05.2025, are set aside and the   petitioner   is   acquitted   from   the   offence,   punishable under Section 138 NI Act. Her personal and surety bonds are discharged. 16. However, this order shall be subject to deposit of 8% of the cheque amount, as compounding fee, within eight weeks from today. 50% of the compounding fee be deposited   with   the   Member   Secretary,   H.P.   State   Legal 6 2025:HHC:32061 Services Authority, Shimla, and remaining 50% with the Chief Justice Disaster Relief Fund. 17. It is further clarified that if the petitioner fails to deposit the compounding fee, as ordered by this Court, within   eight   weeks,   then,   the   present   petition   shall   be deemed to have been dismissed, by reviving the judgment of   conviction,   dated   28.02.2020   and   order   of   sentence dated 29.02.2020, passed by learned trial Court and in that   eventuality,   she  shall   surrender  before  the   learned trial Court to undergo the substantive sentence, imposed upon her, by the learned trial Court. 18. The amount deposited by the petitioner­accused before the learned trial Court, is ordered to be released in favour of the complainant Neeraj Kumar. 19. Pending   miscellaneous   applications,   if   any, shall also stand disposed of. (Virender Singh) Judge 17th September, 2025 (Pramod Kumar)