Offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are compoundable even after conviction, allowing for settlement between parties.

JUDGMENT :

Sushil Kukreja, J.

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C . against judgment, dated 02.08.2023, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., in Case No. 73 of 2022, whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 20.05.2022, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Shillai, District Sirmaur, H.P., in Criminal Complaint No. N.I. 122/3 of 20/17, was affirmed.

2. The brief facts, giving rise to the present petition, can succinctly be summarized as under:

2(a). The petitioner/accused and the respondent/complainant were acquainted with each other and the petitioner requested the complaint to lend him Rs.50,000/- and he assured to return the same on demand. Therefore, the complainant gave Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner and when the complainant requested him to return the amount, he issued a cheque, bearing No. 621163, dated 19.05.2017, amounting to Rs.50,000/- drawn upon State Bank of India, ADB Branch, Paonta Sahib, to the complainant. However, the aforesaid cheque on being presented by the complainant for encashment, was returned by the Bank on 18.07.2017 with remarks ‘insufficient fund’. Thereafter, on 24.07.2017, the complainant issued legal notice to the petitioner, but the petitioner failed to liquidate his financial liability towards the complainant within the stipulated time. Resultantly, the complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the Act”) before the learned Trial Court.

3. The learned Trial Court after conclusion of the trial convicted the accused under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay compensation of Rs.58,000/- to the complainant.

4. Being dissatisfied, the accused/petitioner/convict preferred an appeal before the learned Lower Appellate Court, which was dismissed, and judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 20.05.2022, passed by the learned Trial Court, were affirmed. Hence, accused/ petitioner/convict-Balbir Singh the instant petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C ., with a prayer that his petition be allowed and the impugned judgments and order of sentence passed by the learned Courts below be set-aside and he be acquitted.

5. During the pendency of the instant petition, an application (Cr.MP No. 1408 of 2025) under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) read with Section 147 the Act has been filed by the petitioner-accused, seeking permission of this Court to compound the offence by setting-aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 20.05.2022, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Shillai, District Sirmaur, H.P., in Criminal Complaint No. N.I. 122/3 of 2017, and affirmed vide judgment dated 02.08.2023, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., in Case No. 73/2022.

6. Today, both the petitioner-accused and the complainant-respondent are present before this Court and their statements have been recorded and separately placed on the file.

7. In his statement, the petitioner/accused Balbir Singh stated that on the complaint filed by the complainant Shri Mohin Ram under Section 138 of the Act, he has been convicted by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Shillai, District Sirmaur, H.P., vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 20.05.2022, which was further affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., vide judgment, dated 02.08.2023. He has further stated that he has compromised the matter and paid the entire amount of compensation to the complainant, therefore, the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 20.05.2022, which was affirmed by the learned Appellate court, vide judgment, dated 02.08.202