The Himachal Pradesh High Court reaffirms that once the revision remedy is exhausted and dismissed, the High Court cannot invoke its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to enhance compensation awarded under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, except in cases of grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of process. This judgment follows existing Supreme Court precedent and serves as binding authority, clarifying that Section 482 cannot serve as a means for a ‘second revision.’
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRMMO/931/2025 of AJAY SHARMA Vs SUNITA THAKUR |
| CNR | HPHC010541872025 |
| Date of Registration | 23-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Bench | Single Bench – HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court and High Court precedents on Section 482/397(3) CrPC |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure; Negotiable Instruments Act |
| Questions of Law | Whether the High Court can enhance compensation under Section 138 NI Act using Section 482 CrPC after dismissal of statutory revision. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court reaffirmed that its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked for enhancement of compensation under Section 138 NI Act once the statutory remedy of revision is exhausted and dismissed; only grave miscarriage of justice, abuse of process, or jurisdictional error would justify such intervention. Exercising Section 482 as a “second revision” would defeat the intention of the legislature, which limits parties to a single revision under Section 397(3) CrPC. Discretionary orders on compensation, unless arbitrary or capricious, cannot be revisited via Section 482. No arbitrary or capricious exercise occurred here. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Section 397(3), Section 482 CrPC, and related Supreme Court precedents interpreting the bar on second revision and scope of the High Court’s inherent powers. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner (complainant) sought enhancement of compensation awarded under Section 138 NI Act, following failed revision before the Sessions Judge affirming the trial court’s grant of ₹6,70,000 compensation and one month’s simple imprisonment for a 2018 cheque of ₹6,30,000. The High Court was asked to increase compensation to double the cheque amount plus interest, invoking Section 482 CrPC. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, particularly in cases dealing with Section 482/397(3) CrPC and NI Act compensation |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that Section 482 CrPC is not available as a substitute for a second revision in matters involving orders under Section 138 NI Act, including compensation enhancement.
- The High Court’s inherent powers can only be used after exhaustion of revision if there is a grave miscarriage of justice, abuse of process, or manifest illegality—not for merely seeking better compensation.
- Exercising inherent powers as a matter of course in such situations would defeat the purpose of Section 397(3) CrPC’s bar on multiple revisions.
- Discretionary orders (like quantum of compensation under Section 138 NI Act) will not be interfered with unless the discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously.
- Reliance on cases where revision was directly filed is not applicable for petitions under Section 482 CrPC after a failed revision.
- Advocates should advise clients that enhancement of compensation under Section 138 NI Act, post-revision, is rarely permissible via Section 482 unless exceptional circumstances exist.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court emphasized that under Section 397(3) CrPC, only one revision is permissible, and a second revision is barred, reflecting legislative intent to avoid multiplicity and delay.
- Supreme Court precedents (Krishnan v. Krishnaveni; Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra; V.C. Shukla v. State through CBI; Kailash Verma v. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation) state that Section 482 CrPC is preserved for circumstances of grave injustice or abuse of process, not as a route for a second revision.
- The Court distinguished between the enhancements/remedies available via statutory revision and the extraordinary/inherent powers, clarifying that only exceptional situations—arbitrariness, caprice, failure of justice—warrant interference.
- The Court rejected the petitioner’s reliance on Jugjit Kaur vs Rajwinder Singh, stating it was a revision context, not a Section 482 application post-revision.
- The Court referred to the absence of arbitrariness or caprice in the award of compensation and concluded that enhancing compensation would amount to improper use of inherent powers.
- Reinforced that remedies under Section 482 CrPC are “extraordinary” and not to standardly revisit quantum of compensation already adjudicated by trial and revisional courts.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Argued that compensation awarded by courts below under Section 138 NI Act was inadequate.
- Sought enhancement to double the cheque amount with 9% interest from date of cheque.
- Relied heavily on the judgment in Jugjit Kaur vs Rajwinder Singh 2025:PHHC:033187.
Respondent
- No appearance (“Nemo”).
Factual Background
The complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging non-payment of a cheque issued in 2018 for ₹6,30,000. The trial court convicted the accused and sentenced her to one month’s simple imprisonment and awarded compensation of ₹6,70,000. Both the complainant and accused pursued revision appeals, which were dismissed by the Sessions Judge. The complainant then filed the present petition before the High Court, seeking enhancement of compensation via inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, claiming the amount awarded was insufficient.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court analyzed Section 397(3) of CrPC, which precludes a second revision after one has been decided by the Sessions Court.
- Detailed the scope of Section 482 CrPC (inherent powers of the High Court), holding that these powers may only be exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice, correction of gross errors, or abuse of process, not to circumvent the statutory bar of Section 397(3).
- No interpretation or “reading down” of statutory provisions was undertaken; the Court reaffirmed the existing interpretation as per Supreme Court and Delhi High Court precedent.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No concurring or dissenting opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural precedents or innovations were set by the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision affirms existing Supreme Court and High Court precedent on the limitations of High Court powers under Section 482 CrPC in light of the bar under Section 397(3).