##PAGE1##

(cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:2)(cid:1)

CRR-3495-2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CRR-3495-2018

JUDGEMENT JUDGEMENT OPERATIVE UPLOADED ON

RESERVED ON PRONOUNCED PART PRO-

ON NOUNCED OR

FULL

06.02.2026 27.02.2026 FULL PRO- 27.02.2026

NOUNCED

Jarnail Singh ......Petitioner

Vs.

Kulbir Singh ......Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present: Mr. Kirpal Singh Thakur, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Kashav Chadha, Advocate and

Ms. Tamana Singla, Advocate

for the respondent.

***

ANOOP CHITKARA J.

Criminal No. 61 of 12.05.2012

Complaint

NACT 121 of 2014

Date of order: 02.02.2015

Criminal No.RT-37/03.03.2015/08.07.2015

Appeal

CIS No.CRA/98/2015

CNR No.PBSA01-001054-2015

Date of decision: 11.09.2018

1. The petitioner, who stands convicted by the trial court as well as the Sessions court,

for the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

Act, 1881, (NIA) has come up before this Court under Section 482, Code of Criminal

Procedure, (CrPC) for quashing the proceedings because the parties have compromised the

matter.

2. The petitioner faced criminal prosecution by the private respondent because of the

dishonor of the cheque in question.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that matter stands compromised between the

parties and refer to compromise dated 01.10.2018.

1 of 7

::: Downloaded on - 27-02-2026 21:48:22 :::

(cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:1)

CRR-3495-2018

4. Counsel for the respondent submits that nothing is due towards petitioner and he

has no objection if the judgment of conviction and order of sentence are set aside.

5. The jurisprudence behind the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is that the business

transactions are to be honoured. The legislative intention is not to make people suffer

incarceration only because their cheques bounced. These proceedings are to recover the

cheque amount by showing teeth of a penal clause. Now, as per the above-mentioned

report, the parties have settled their disputes and have compromised the matter.

6. It would be relevant to refer to the judicial precedents where based on the

compromise, the convictions were set aside:

a). In Mohd. Rafi v. State of U.P., 1998(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 455, Supreme

Court, the convict had gone to Hon’ble Supreme Court against his conviction by

the trial Court under Sections 323 and 325 of IPC, which was upheld by Sessions

and High Court. After that, the convict and the victim entered into an out-of-court

compromise. Hon’ble Supreme Court analyzed the parties' affidavits filed in

support of the compromise and observed that parties had willingly and voluntarily

settled the matter. To maintain good relations, Hon’ble Supreme Court granted

permission to them to compound the said offenses and order the acquittal.

b). In Parameswari v. Vennila, (2000) 10 SCC 348, the appellants before

Hon'ble Supreme Court had been convicted under Section 494 read with Section

109 of IPC. After that, they arrived at a settlement with the complainant, in the

presence of panchayatdars of their village, and placed on record the duly signed

compromise, and parties filed a joint application for permission to compound the

offences. While observing that the offence involved was compoundable with the

wife's consent and permission of the Court, Hon'ble Supreme Court granted

permission to compound the offence, and resultantly the appellants stood acquitted

of the offence for which they have been held guilty.

c). In Ramachandra Singh v. State of Bihar, 2003(10) SCC 234, Hon’ble

Supreme Court holds,

[5]. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and the state and

taken into, consideration the fact and circumstances of the case. In

view of the compromise it appears that grievance, if any, of the

complainant KamleshKumari Devi is over. Indeed in view of the

compromise the accused appellants stand acquitted of the offence

under Section 323 Indian Penal Code. In such circumstances t