IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Kikkar Singh …....Petitioner(s).

Versus Sham Sunder Monga …....Respondent(s).

Judgment Judgment Operative Part Uploaded on reserved on pronounced on Pronounced or full

09.03.2026 18.03.2026 Fully pronounced 18.03.2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA, Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Karan Sirohi, Advocate for the respondent.

***

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

Criminal Criminal Comp.No.77 of 27.01.2016-05.05.2017 Complaint CIS No.NACT/28/2016 CNR No.PBFZ03-000126-2016 Date of decision: 21.05.2018.

Criminal CRA-53 of 13.12.2018 Appeal CIS No.CRA/259 of 2018.

CNR No.PBFZ0100-6838-2018 Date of decision: 13.12.2018.

Convict’s Penal provision Sentence name Kikkar S. 138 of the Negotiable Rigorous imprisonment for one year and to Singh Instruments Act, 1881 pay compensation of Rs.3.75 lacs.

1. This revision petition has arisen out of judgment dated 13.12.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.05.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur, have been upheld, whereby the petitioner-accused was held guilty for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and was convicted and sentenced, as stated above.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that an amicable settlement has been arrived at between the parties vide compromise deed dated 2.2.2019 and pursuant thereto, the petitioner has paid the amount of settlement to the respondent-complainant and therefore, he prayed for compounding of offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and acceptance of the revision petition.

3. Learned counsel representing the complainant/respondent has admitted the factum of compromise between the parties and filed affidavit dated 18.02.2026 of complainant - Sham Sunder Monga, which was taken on record. He further submitted 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 and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence are set aside.

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

5. As submitted by counsel for the petitioner, a compromise was effected and full and final settlement has taken place between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that disputed cheque(s) amount/compensation amount has already been paid by the petitioner to respondent and now, nothing is due towards him, which is conceded by learned counsel for the respondent.

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

7. 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