IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

244 CRR-2408-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 11.02.2026 Gursewak Singh ....Petitioner Versus Rajinder Singh and Another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY *****

Present : Mr. Judgepreet Singh Warring, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Yagsimant Attri, Advocate for respondent No.1 *****

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. The challenge in the present criminal revision is to the order dated 21.08.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.06.2022 passed by learned SDJM, vide which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the Act’) and to pay compensation.

2. The facts relevant as narrated in the complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI Act are that the complainant had sold a swift car to the accused- petitioner for an amount of Rs.2,60,000/- on 17.11.2018 and in discharge of his liability issued a cheque bearing No.000001 dated 12.03.2019, amounting to Rs.2,60,000/-, in favour of the complainant. However, on presentation thereof, the same was dishonoured and returned with the remarks “Insufficient Funds”. Despite issuance of legal notice, the petitioner failed to make the payment within the stipulated period. The proceedings against him were initiated under Section 138 of the NI Act, pursuant to which, he appeared and was released on bail. On finding prima facie case under Section 138 of the NI Act, notice of accusation was served upon him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. In order to prove its case, complainant-Rajinder Singh examined as CW 1, Ranjit Singh as CW2, Sukhdev Singh as CW3 and also led documentary evidence. On closure of its evidence, statement of accused-petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, he denied all the allegations raised against him and pleaded innocence. However, he did not produce any evidence in his defence.

4. 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-accused, and convicted and sentenced him, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 138 NI Act and to pay double of the cheque amount as compensation to the complainant. Aggrieved convict-petitioner filed appeal, which was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Budhlada, vide impugned judgment dated

21.08.2025.

5. Hence, the present revision petition.

6. Learned counsel at the very outset submits that in view of the compromise dated 09.02.2026, Annexure A-1 having been arrived at between the parties, based on which CRM-48856-2025 has also been filed under Section 359 read with Section 528 of BNS for compounding the offence. As per the settlement, the parties do not wish to pursue with the matter. He prays that the fee with regard to the same be waived off, in view of the poor financial condition of the petitioner. He has with great difficulty, managed to collect the money and settled the dispute as he wanted to put an end to the same, six years having gone by.

7. Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 admits the factum of compromise and states that as per the settlement, the complainant has received 4,50,000/- and the remaining Rs.80,000/- will be paid after 6 months. Thus, he, on instructions, submits that there is no objection, if the prayer made by the petitioner is accepted.

8. 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 Meters and Instruments Private Limited & Anr. Vs Kanchan Mehta1,this court held that the nature of offence under section 138 of the N.I Act is primarily related to a civil wrong and has been specifical