JUDGMENT :

Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral)

The present revision petition has been preferred against judgment dated 09.04.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ambala, whereby judgment of conviction dated 30.11.2019 and order of sentence dated 04.12.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Naraingarh have been upheld in case stemming from complaint bearing CIS No.NACT-188 of 2015 titled as Amit Kumar vs. Mahipal', filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as NI Act'), and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner had borrowed an amount of Rs.1,35,000/- from the respondent No.1 on 10.01.2014. Thereafter on 16.01.2015, he further borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-with the assurance that he would return the said amount. On 16.01.2015, the petitioner also executed a writing in presence of marginal witnesses acknowledging the loan amount. In discharge of the said liability, he issued two post-dated cheques bearing Nos.197245 and 197246 for an amount of Rs.3,35,000/- upto 16.07.2015 drawn on Haryana Gramin Bank, Patvi, in favour of the complainant. When the said cheques were presented for their encashment, the same were dishonoured vide return memo dated 22.09.2015 with remarks "Funds Insufficient". Thereafter, the complainant served a legal notice dated 07.10.2015 upon the petitioner, however, he did not pay the amount. Hence, the complaint.

3. After appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner vide judgment dated 30.11.2019 and order dated 04.12.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the learned lower Appellate Court, but his appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 09.04.2024. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of NI Act and was awarded simple imprisonment for a period of 06 months.

5. Learned counsel further submits at the time of filing of appeal, he had already paid 20% of the cheque amount i.e. Rs.67,000/-. Further, he has deposited a demand draft for an amount of Rs.2,68,000/- in the Registry of this Court. He furthermore submits that the petitioner is further ready to pay an amount of Rs.1 lakh to compensate respondent No.1 and settle the dispute.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that he has obtained necessary instructions from his client i.e. respondent No.1 that he is ready to receive the demand draft of Rs.1 lakh along with Rs.2,68,000/- already deposited in the Registry of this Court towards full and final settlement. Further, respondent No.1 has no objection in case, the offence under Section 138 of NI Act be compounded and the petitioner be acquitted of the notice of accusation framed against him.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book with their able assistance. The demand draft of Rs.1 lakh dated 18.03.2025 has been handed over to learned counsel for respondent No.1 in the Court today itself. A copy thereof has been retained on the file. Registry is directed to tag the same at appropriate place.

8. It is settled law that the proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the NI Act are quasi-criminal in nature and the object and purpose of this enactment is to provide a compensatory mechanism for expeditious recovery of money as opposed to punishing the accused. A two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. Vijayan Vs. Baby (2012) 1 SCC 260 has considered the said issue and come to the conclusion that punishing the offender is secondary concern.

9. The amendment carried out in the year 2002 in the NI Act intended to make the nature of offence under Section 138 of the NI Act as a civil wrong while making it compoundable. A two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meters and Instruments Private Limited and another Vs. Kanchan Mehta