Compounding of offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act is permissible at any stage, including post-conviction, especially with bona fide settlements, affirming the roles of judicial discretion and inherent powers of High Courts.

JUDGMENT :

SUMEET GOEL, J.

1. The present petition has been filed impugning the judgment dated 25.02.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib as also judgment and order of sentence dated 23.01.2020 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Giddarbaha whereby the petitioner has been held guilty for committing an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that, during the pendency of proceedings, the petitioner and the complainant-Bank have entered into a settlement/compromise and the petitioner has already deposited the cheque amount with the bank, in respect of which a certificate has been duly issued by the respondent-bank. Furthermore, the petitioner being an uneducated person hailing from a rural background was under a bona fide belief that the matter stood concluded with the respondent-Bank and, thus, discontinued appearing before the appellate Court. According to learned counsel, such conduct on the part of the petitioner has occasioned on account of a bona fide impression and not on account of any deliberate lapse or ulterior motive. Learned counsel has further submitted that since the parties have amicably settled their dispute(s), the matter may be compounded and the petitioner be acquitted. On the basis of aforesaid submissions, the grant of instant revision petition is entreated for.

3. Learned State counsel has submitted that on account of the petitioner not appearing before the learned Appellate Court, instant revision petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has failed to show any regard for the process of law, thereby, the learned appellate Court has very rightly dismissed the appeal preferred on behalf of the petitioner (herein).

4. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant-respondent has ratified the factum of compromise/settlement having been arrived at between the parties and has further vouched for the genuineness of the certificate dated 08.05.2025 issued by the bank (copy whereof has been appended as Annexure P-1 with the instant petition). Accordingly, he has iterated that the respondent-bank has no objection in case the offence is permitted to be compounded and the petitioner is ordered to be acquitted.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused the available record.

6. Dealing with the preliminary objection raised by the learned State counsel regarding maintainability of the instant revision petition, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by this Court in Harcharan Singh vs. State of Punjab passed in CRR-1704-2025 dated 05.08.2025, relevant whereof reads thus:

“12. As a sequitur to the above ratiocination, the following postulates emerge:

I. A criminal revision petition against the judgments of conviction (as also an application for suspension of sentence, etc.) is maintainable before this High Court, without the petitioner-accused having surrendered or being in custody, in the absence of any rule in the extant Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules/Orders proscribing such maintainability.

II (i) The mere maintainability of a revision petition (as also an accompanying application for suspension of sentence) does not, ipso facto, translate into its desirability; the latter is a matter of judicial discretion –– which is inexorably linked to the bona fides and overall conduct of the petitioner-accused, including the sufficiency of reasons proffered for non- appearance before the Appellate Court.

(ii) Where the conduct of the petitioner-accused