IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

Date of decision: 19.12.2025

Date of Uploading: 19.12.2025

Ajji ....Petitioner

V/s

M/s Mahindra & Mahindra and another ...Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Zeeshan Khan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Himendra Pal Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG, Haryana

for respondent No.2.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed impugning the judgment dated 29.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram & the judgment and order of sentence dated 19.11.2024 passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Gurugram, whereby the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881.

2. On 28.11.2025, the following order was passed:

“Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also

learned counsel for respondent No.1 have submitted that the matter in hand be referred to District Mediation Centre, Gurugram, as the lis has been settled between the rival parties,

vide settlement letter dated 08.11.2025.

In the interest of justice, the parties (through their

respective counsel) are directed to appear before the District

Mediation Centre, Gurugram at 11:00 AM on 02.12.2025.

Put up on 17.12.2025 alongwith report of the Mediator.

Be taken up in the urgent cause list.

Interim order to continue.”

3. Report dated 12.12.2025 has been received from the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Secretary District Legal Services Authority, Gururam, wherein it has been mentioned that the matter stands settled between the rival parties, vide Full & Final Settlement deed dated

11.12.2025, appended with the said report.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, since the parties have amicably settled their dispute(s), the offence may be compounded and the petitioner be acquitted.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant-respondent No.1 has ratified the factum of compromise/settlement having been arrived at between the parties before the District Mediation Centre, Gurugram. Accordingly, he has iterated that the respondent No.1-complainant has no objection in case the offence is permitted to be compounded and the petitioner is ordered to be acquitted.

6. Learned State counsel submits that he has no objection in case the offence is permitted to be compounded by this Court and the petitioner is ordered to be acquitted.

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

8. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H., AIR 2010(SC) 1907, relevant whereof reads thus:

“15. With regard to the progression of litigation in cheque bouncing cases, the learned Attorney General has urged this Court to frame guidelines for a graded scheme of imposing costs on parties who unduly delay compounding of the offence. It was submitted that the requirement of deposit of the costs will act as a deterrent for delayed composition, since at present, free and easy compounding of offences at any stage, however belated, gives an incentive to the drawer of the cheque to delay settling the cases for years. An application for compounding made after several years not only results in the system being burdened but the complainant is also deprived of effective justice. In view of this submission, we direct that the following guidelines be followed:-

THE GUIDELINES (i) In the circumstances, it is proposed as follows:

(a) That directions can be given that the Writ of Summons be suitably modified making it clear to the accused that he could make an application for compounding of the offences at the first or second hearing of the case and that if such an application is made, compounding may be allowed by the court without imposing any costs on the accused.

(b) If the accused does not make an application for compounding as aforesaid,