IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

259 CRR-157-2025 (O & M)

Date of decision: 22.12.2025

M/s Devgan Medical Agencies and another

....Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and another

...Respondents

2) CRR-205-2025 (O & M)

M/s Devgan Medical Agencies and another

....Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and another

...Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY

Present : Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate,

for the petitioner in CRR-157-2025.

Dr. Pankaj Nanhera, Advocate,

for the petitioner in CRR-205-2025.

Mr. Rahul Kumar Adia, AAG, Punjab

Mr. Anupam, Advocate,

for respondent No.2 (in both cases).

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. Both these criminal revisions are taken up and decided

together by way of a common judgment.

2. The challenge in these criminal revisions is to the order dated 13.12.2024 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Amritsar, dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.08.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, vide which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lakh to the complainant under Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C.

3. The facts relevant as narrated in the complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI Act are that the accused-petitioner(s) in discharge of their liability had issued a cheque bearing No.363690 dated 20.09.2018 for Rs.5 lakh. However, on presentation thereof, the same was dishonoured and returned with the remarks “Fund Insufficient”. Despite issuance of legal notice, the petitioners failed to make the payment within the stipulated period. The proceedings against them were initiated under Section 138 of the NI Act, pursuant to which, they appeared and were released on bail. On finding prima facie case under Section 138 of the NI Act, notice of accusation was served upon them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. In order to prove its case, the complainant-Tarun Kapoor examined as CW 1 as well as Amarpal Singh, Relationship Manager from ICICI Bank, Branch Mall Road, Amritsar as CW2 and Ajay Kumar, Assistant Manager from Andhra Bank (now Union Bank of India) Branch Hall Gate, Amritsar as CW3 and also led documentary evidence. On closure of the evidence, statements of accused-petitioner(s) under Section

313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, they denied all the allegations raised against them and pleaded innocence. In their defence, accused-petitioner(s) did not examine any witness despite availing ample opportunities and the defence evidence was closed by Court order.

5. After scrutinizing the evidence led by the parties, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the complainant has successfully proved his case against the petitioner(s)-accused, and convicted and sentenced them, as mentioned in para no.1 above. Aggrieved convicts- petitioner(s) filed appeal, which was dismissed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide impugned judgment dated 13.12.2024.

6. Hence, the present revision petitions.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submit that the matter has since been settled between the parties as the amount was paid to the complainant and no other amount is due with regard to the dishonour of the cheque. They, thus, prays the offence under Section 138 N.I.Act be compounded and fee with regard to the same be waived off, in view of the fact that the petitioner(s) have the responsibility of their families and due to this litigation, they have faced financial distress. The petitioner(s) have with great difficulty managed to collect the money and settled the dispute as they wanted to put an end to the same, seven years having gone by.

8. Learned counsel for complainant-respondent No.2 affirms the factum of compromise arrived at between them.

9. It is apposite to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble The Supreme Court in B.V.Seshaiah vs. The State of Telangana and another 2023 Live Law (SC) 75, wherein it was held thus:

“10. In the case of M/S Me