IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

149 CRR Nos.3187, 3191

& 3196 of 2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 19.12.2025

Date of uploading: 19.12.2025

M/s Phosphate India Private Limited and another

....Petitioners

V/s

Paramjit Kaur and others

....Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Vipul Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Abhishek Sanghi, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 2.

Mr. Adhiraj Singh, AAG, Punjab

for respondent No.3.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. By this common order, the aforesaid three revision petitions i.e. CRR Nos.3187, 3191 & 3196 of 2025, are being disposed off together, as

the same involve commonality of facts and issue(s).

For the sake of convenience, the facts are being drawn out from

CRR-3187-2025 (titled as Phosphate India Private Limited and another

Vs. Paramjit Kaur and others)

2. The present criminal revision petitions have been filed impugning the judgment dated 19.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar & the judgment and order of sentence dated 28.02.2020 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Rupnagar whereby the petitioner No.2 namely Akash Goyal has been convicted and sentenced for

offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that during the pendency of proceedings, the petitioner No.2 and the complainant have entered into a settlement/compromise dated 08.12.2025 (Annexure P-1). Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that since the parties have amicably settled their dispute(s), the matter may be compounded and the petitioner No.2 be acquitted.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 & 2 has ratified the factum of compromise/settlement having been arrived at between the parties and has further vouched the genuineness of the compromise/settlement dated 08.12.2025 stated to be arrived between the parties. Accordingly, he has iterated that the respondent-complainant has no objection in case the offence is permitted to be compounded and the petitioner No.2 is ordered to be acquitted.

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

6. 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, then if an application for compounding is made before the Magistrate at a subsequent stage, compounding can be allowed subject to the condition that the accused will be required to pay 10% of the cheque amount to be deposited as a condition for compounding with the Legal Services Authority, or such authority as the Court deems fit.

(c) Similarly, if the