116+202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-1034-2019 (O&M)

DECIDED ON: 16.05.2025 KARNAIL SINGH .....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

.....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Surender Dhull, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Mayuri Lakhanpal Kalia, DAG Haryana Mr. S.S. Brar, Advocate for respondent no.2.

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

CRM-19961-2025 Application is allowed, as prayed for.

Annexure A-1 on behalf of respondent No.2 namely Dharam Pal Kapoor, is taken on record.

CRR-1034-2019

1. The present revision petition has been preferred against judgment of conviction dated 11.08.2015 and order of sentence dated 12.08.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Bilaspur vide which the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay compensation of Rs.6,50,000/- to the respondent No.1/complainant and the judgment dated 24.04.2019 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, vide which appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. On perusal of order dated 04.04.2025, it is evident that a compromise has been effected between the parties, which has been reduced into writing vide affidavit/compromise dated 07.05.2025 (Annexure A-1) and on that account counsel for the respondent submits that he does not want to challenge his conviction on merits.

3. Along-with the present petition, an application bearing CRM No. 45312-2024 has been filed by the applicant/petitioner under Section 147 NI Act read with Section 359 of BNSS, 2023 compounding of the offences, as compromise has already been effected between the parties, which has been reduced into writing vide affidavit/compromise dated 07.05.2025.

4. The petitioner(s) stands convicted under Sections 138 of Act of 1881 vide judgment of conviction dated 11.08.2015 and order of sentence dated 12.08.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Bilaspur, undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay compensation of Rs.6,50,000/- to the respondent No.1/complainant for commission of offence under Section 138 of Act of 1881 and the appeal preferred against the afore-said judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been dismissed vide judgment dated 24.04.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri.

5. During the pendency of present revision petition, the petitioner and complainant have entered into an out of Court settlement and the same has been reduced into writing vide affidavit/compromise dated 07.05.2025 (Annexure A-1). A perusal of the documents reveal that the settlement has not been secured through coercion, threats, social boycotts, bribes, or other dubious means. The complainant has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings. There is no objection from the respondent in case present revision petitions are allowed.

6. In the given facts, the occurrence does not affect public peace or tranquillity, moral turpitude or harm the social and moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning public policy. The rejection of compromise may also lead to ill will. The pendency of trial affects career and happiness. There is nothing on the record to prima facie consider the accused as an unscrupulous, incorrigible, and professional offender. The purpose of criminal jurisprudence is reformatory in nature and to work to bring peace to family, and society. The exercise of the inherent power for quashing the conviction, sentence and all previous proceedings are justified to secure the ends of justice.

7. At the very initial stage of hearing, a question was raised on behalf of the appellant as to whether an offence under Section 138 of the Act of 1881, could be compounded under Section 147 of the said Act read with Section 320 Cr.P.C (now Section 359 BNSS).

8. Since a specific power had been given to the parties to a proceed