Back
2025 Supreme(P&H) 1121
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
Bhupinder Kumar @ Bupinder Kumar - Appellant
Vs.
Ramesh Kumar And Others - Respondent
CRR-2193-2025 (O&M)
Decided On : 28-10-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Avtar Singh Khinda, Advocate
For the Respondent:Ms. Komal Mahindra, Advocate
JUDGMENT :
Anoop Chitkara, J.
Criminal Complaint | No. NACT-88-2016 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Date of decision: 15.04.2021 |
Criminal Appeal | CRA/11/2021Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Kapurthala. Date of decision: 13.02.2025. |
Convict's name | Penal provision | Sentence |
Bhupinder Kumar | S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 | R.I. for one year and to pay compensation of Rs.2,80,000/- |
1. The petitioner, who stands convicted by the trial Court for the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (NIA) and said judgment having been affirmed by the Sessions Court, has come up before this Court under Section 442 BNSS seeking setting aside of judgment of conviction and order of sentence based on the compromise deed dated 7.3.2025 (Annexure P-1) entered between the parties.
2. Given the statement made by the counsel for the parties that a compromise has taken place between the parties, this Court vide order dated 9.9.2025, asked the parties to appear before the concerned Court and get their statements recorded and had asked the said Court to give its report as per the format. The report dated 25.9.2025 of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur Lodhi has been received, which reads as follows:
Name of the reporting Court | Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur Lodhi |
Criminal Case no. before trial Court | NACT-88-2016 Decided on 15.4.2021 |
Criminal Appeal | CRA No.11-2021 Decided on 13.02.2025 |
1. | Names of the complainant/ victims(s)/ aggrieved persons(s) | LRs of complainant Ram Kumar are: 1(a) Amaijit, 1(b) Parminder Kumar, 1(c) Hem Latta and 1(d) Mamta Rani. |
2. | Dates on which the statement(s) of the complainant/ victims(s)/ aggrieved persons(s) were recorded | 20.09.2025 |
3. | Has the identity of the complainant/ victims(s)/ aggrieved persons(s) been verified? | Yes |
4. | Whether all the victims/ all the aggrieved persons have compromised the matter? | Yes |
5. | Is there pressure, threat, or coercion upon the victim(s)/aggrieved person( s)/complainant? | No |
6. | Names of the accused person(s) | Bhupinder Kumar |
7. | Dates on which the statement(s) of the accused persons(s) recorded | 20.09.2025 |
8. | Whether all the accused have compromised the matter? If no, then the names of the accused who have compromised. | Yes. |
9. | Whether proclamation proceedings are pending against any accused? | No |
10. | Whether the court is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise? | Yes |
4. The jurisprudence behind the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is that the business transactions are to be honoured. The legislative intention is not to make people suffer incarceration only because their cheques bounced. These proceedings are to recover the cheque amount by showing teeth of a penal clause. Now, as per the above-mentioned report, the parties have settled their disputes and have compromised the matter.
5. It would be relevant to refer to the judicial precedents where based on the compromise, the convictions were set aside:
a). In Ram Prasad and Another v. State of Uttar Pardesh, Cr.A Nos. 308-309 of 1980, decided on April 21, 1980, Hon'ble Supreme Court converted the conviction from 307 IPC to 324 IPC and after that based on compromise, accepted the compounding of offence under section 324 IPC and acquitted the appellants.
b). In Ramji Lal v. State of Haryana, (1983) 1 SCC 368, Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a matter arising against the conviction under section 325 IPC, held,
[5]. All the offences for which the appellants are convicted are compoundable and the compromise can be entered into with the permission of the court. Looking to the chastened attitude of the accused and the commendable attitude of the injured complainant, in order to restore harmony in the society, we accept the compromise. We grant permission to enter into the compromise and accept the same. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on both the appellants. If they are on bail, their bail-bonds will be cancelled. If they are in jail, they will be released from the
