257 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-254-2025 (O&M) Decided on : 04.03.2025 Surinder Pal .....PETITIONER VERSUS State of Punjab and another .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH.

Present: Mr. Saurav Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jasdeep Singh, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Kuljinder Singh Billing, Advocate for respondent No.2.

SANJAY VASHISTH, J (ORAL)

1. Present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 18.01.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, whereby appeal filed against the judgment and order of sentence dated 08.08.2022 passed by learned Sub Dvisional Judicial Magistrate, Balachaur, convicting the petitioner for committing offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 year and to pay compensation amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (out of the total cheque amount of Rs.4,50,000/-, because he had already paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant on

19.05.2022), was dismissed.

2. During the pendency of the revision petition before this Court, dispute between the parties was amicably resolved, and thereupon, on 29.01.2025, following order was passed by this Court:-

“1. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.08.2022, passed by learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Balachaur, vide which, petitioner has been convicted and sentenced under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act, 1881 (in short, ‘NI Act’) to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 01 year and to pay compensation amount of Rs. 4,00,000/-, out of the total cheque amount of Rs. 4,50,000/-, because he had already paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant on 19.05.2022. In default of non-payment of compensation amount, the petitioner was ordered to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

In addition, petitioner has also assailed the judgment dated 18.01.2025, passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, whereby, appeal of the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 08.08.2022, has been dismissed.

2. While addressing arguments, counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact the money dispute has been resolved between the petitioner and respondent No.2 – Hemant Bhatia and on that account, an application for compounding of the offence, i.e. CRM-3714-2025, has also been filed along with present criminal revision.

3. Notice of motion.

4. On asking of the Court, Mr. Amandeep Singh, DAG, Punjab, who is present in the Court, accepts notice for respondent No.1 - State and prays for some time to seek instructions and to file reply, if any.

5. At this stage, Mr. Kuljinder Singh Billing, Advocate, puts in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 – complainant and files his Vakalatnama in the Court today, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions Let requisite copies of the complete paper book be handed over to the learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent No.2, during the course of the day.

6. Counsel for respondent No.2 – complainant affirms the submissions addressed by the counsel for the petitioner. However, he prays for grant of some time to file an affidavit of respondent No. 2 – complainant, in response to the submissions addressed by the petitioner’s counsel and the application for compounding of offence.

7. While addressing submissions in the application for suspension of sentence (CRM-3712-2025), during pendency of present revision petition, counsel for the petitioner submits that in para No. 18 of the impugned judgment, learned lower Appellate Court has noticed that at the time of decision of appeal, petitioner was not present before the Court, while in subsequent para No. 20, while dismissing the appeal, specifically mentioned that ‘Appellant-convict Surinder Pal, who is already in custody in some other case, has not been produced by the