IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 04.09.2025 SUKHVINDER SINGH ....Petitioner Versus SANJAY GUPTA AND ANR.

...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Present : Mr. Sutikshan Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

None for respondent No.1.

Mr. Parmod Kumar, AAG, Haryana. AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

CRM-34508-2025 Allowed as prayed for. Annexure P-2 is taken on record.

CRR-3606-2018

1. The challenge in the present criminal revision is to the order dated 17.01.2018 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ambala, dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.02.2015 and 10.02.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala, vide which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and to pay a cheque amount of Rs.17 lakh to complainant-respondent No.1 as compensation.

2. The facts relevant as narrated in the complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI Act by complainant-respondent No.1 are that the accused-petitioner and one Daljeet Kaur agreed to sell the land to the complainant, vide agreement to sell dated 17.12.2011, and at that time, the latter paid an earnest money of Rs.25 lakh, but they did not comply with the terms and conditions of the same. However, they mutually agreed to return the earnest amount. For this purpose, the petitioner-accused issued a cheque No.442373 dated 30.01.2013, amounting to Rs.17 lakh to the complainant to discharge part liability. However, on presentation thereof, the same were dishonoured and returned with the remarks “Account Closed”. Despite issuance of legal notice, the petitioner failed to make the payment within the stipulated period. The proceedings against him were initiated under Section 138 of the NI Act, pursuant to which, he appeared and was released on bail. On finding prima facie case under Section 138 of the NI Act, notice of accusation was served upon him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. In order to prove its case, the complainant examined himself as CW 1 and also tendered certain documents. On closure of evidence, statement of accused-petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, he denied all the allegations raised against him and pleaded innocence. In his defence, the accused examined Suresh Kumar Verma, Tax Assistant, IT Department as DW 1.

4. After scrutinizing the evidence led by the parties, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the complainant has successfully proved its case against the petitioner-accused, and convicted and sentenced him, as mentioned in para no.1 above. Aggrieved convict- petitioner filed appeal, which was dismissed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ambala, vide impugned judgment dated 17.01.2018.

5. Hence, the present revision petition.

6. As is recorded in the order dated 31.01.2019, the parties had compromised the matter, in pursuance thereof, they were directed to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements with regard to the compromise.

7. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 13.02.2019 has been received from the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala. A perusal of the same reveals that statements of the concerned persons have been recorded, who stated that the matter has been settled between them.

8. Learned counsel submits that with a view to put an end to the long standing dispute, the petitioner has with great difficulty managed to collect Rs.1, 55,000/- which has been deposited vide receipts Annexure P- 2 and prays for waiving off the remaining compounding fee, in view of the fact that he is a poor person, only bread earner of the family, not having good health and suffering from various ailments like diabetes, kidney etc.

9. It is apposite to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble The Supreme Court in B.V.Seshaiah vs. The State of Telangana and another 2023 Live Law (SC) 75, wherein it was held thus:

“10. In