IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:30.04.2025 Kuldeep Singh …Petitioner Vs.

Jasmandeep Singh …Respondent Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present: Ms. Manmohan Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Amitoj Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate for the applicant/petitioner.

Mr. Arsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the respondent.

***

N.S.Shekhawat J.

1. The petitioner had filed the present revision petition against the impugned judgment dated 06.11.2024 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana and the impugned judgment and order dated 23.05.2018 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Ludhiana, whereby, the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') and was sentenced as under:-

“(i) Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act convict/accused Kuldeep Singh shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.

(ii) Under Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C., the convict shall pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant who can recover entire amount either from accused or from her personal properties under law”.

2. During the pendency of the present revision petition, the petitioner filed an application (CRM 8986 of 2025) under Section 147 of the Act with a prayer to compound the offence under Section 138 of the Act. As per the petitioner, the entire dispute in the present case was for an amount of Rs.9 lacs and the petitioner had already paid a sum of Rs.4 lacs to the respondent. However, a compromise deed dated 02.12.2024 was executed between the parties and the petitioner had handed over a bank draft bearing No.020275 dated 17.02.2025 drawn on HDFC Bank for a sum of Rs. 5 lacs to the respondent as full and final settlement. Thus, it was prayed that the parties may be allowed to compound the offence and the petitioner may be acquitted of the notice of accusation.

3. A short reply had been filed by way of an affidavit of the respondent and the same was taken on record.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the matter has been settled between the parties with regard to the entire litigation and the respondent had received total sum of Rs.9 lacs from the petitioner. He had no objection in case the petitioner was ordered to be acquitted by this Court.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the matter of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H., AIR 2010 (SC) 1907: 2010(2) RCR (Criminal

851) as follows:-

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 t