IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 24.02.2026.

Naveen Kumar ...Petitioner.

Versus Anil Kumar ...Respondent.

***

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR .......

Present: Mr. G.S. Bedi, Advocate and Mr. Anand V. Khanna, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajpreet Singh, Advocate for the respondent.

***

SUKHVINDER KAUR , J .

1. By way of this revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 04.02.2026 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, vide which the judgment of conviction dated 13.03.2025 and order of sentence dated 19.03.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak, has been upheld, whereby the petitioner was held guilty for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and was convicted.

2. In CRR-394-2026, an application i.e. CRM-8591-2026 for compounding of offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act has been filed on the basis of compromise deed dated 16.02.2026 (Annexure A1).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the compromise has been effected between the parties and as per the compromise all the dues had been paid by the petitioner as such, he prays for compounding of the offence and acceptance of the revision petition.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Rajpreet Singh, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the complainant/ respondent.

6. Learned counsel representing the complainant/ respondent has admitted the factum of compromise and submits that he has specific instructions from the complainant/ respondent that he has no objection in case the revision petition is allowed and the petitioner is acquitted of the notice of accusation.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the relevant material placed on record.

8. As submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of proceedings, settlement was effected between the parties. In CRR- 394-2026 compromise deed dated 16.02.2026 (Annexure A-1) and affidavit of complainant/ respondent dated 16.02.2026 regarding the compromise have been placed on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that disputed cheque amount has already been paid by the petitioner to the respondent and now nothing is due towards him, which is conceded by learned counsel for the respondent.

9. The object and purpose of proceeding initiated under the Act is to provide a compensatory mechanism for expeditious recovery of money and not just punishing the offender, which is a secondary concern.

10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Meters and Instruments Private Limited and another Vs. Kanchan Mehta (2018) 1 SCC 560, has held as under:-

“7. This Court has noted that the object of the statute was to facilitate smooth functioning of business transactions. The provision is necessary as in many transactions’ cheques were issued merely as a device to defraud the creditors. Dishonour of cheque causes incalculable loss, injury and inconvenience to the Vide the Banking, Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988 payee and credibility of business transactions suffers a setback. At the same time, it was also noted that nature of offence under Section 138 primarily related to a civil wrong and the 2002 amendment specifically made it compoundable…...

xxxx xxxx xxxx

18.2. The object of the provision being primarily compensatory, punitive element being mainly with the object of enforcing the compensatory element, compounding at the initial stage has to be encouraged but is not debarred at later stage subject to appropriate compensation as may be found acceptable to the parties or the court.

18.3. Though compounding requires consent of both parties, even in absence of such consent, the court, in the interests of justice, on being satisfied that the complainant has been duly compensated, can in its discretion close the proceedings and discharge the accused.”

11. Offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act is a compoundable offence. As in the presen