IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 01.10.2025 Pronounced on: 28.10.2025 Bhupinder Kumar @ Bupinder Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Ramesh Kumar & others …Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Avtar Singh Khinda, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Komal Mahindra, Advocate for respondents No.1(a)(c)(d).

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

Criminal No. NACT-88-2016 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Complaint Act.

Date of decision: 15.04.2021 Criminal CRA/11/2021Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Kapurthala.

Appeal Date of decision: 13.02.2025.

Convict’s Penal provision Sentence name Bhupinder S. 138 of the Negotiable R.I. for one year and to pay compensation of Kumar Instruments Act, 1881 Rs.2,80,000/-

1. The petitioner, who stands convicted by the trial Court for the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (NIA) and said judgment having been affirmed by the Sessions Court, has come up before this Court under Section 442 BNSS seeking setting aside of judgment of conviction and order of sentence based on the compromise deed dated 7.3.2025 (Annexure P-1) entered between the parties.

2. Given the statement made by the counsel for the parties that a compromise has taken place between the parties, this Court vide order dated 9.9.2025, asked the parties to appear before the concerned Court and get their statements recorded and had asked the said Court to give its report as per the format. The report dated 25.9.2025 of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur Lodhi has been received, which reads as follows:

Name of the reporting Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur Lodhi Court Criminal Case no. NACT-88-2016 Decided on 15.4.2021 before trial Court Criminal Appeal CRA No.11-2021 Decided on 13.02.2025

10. Whether the court is satisfied with the Yes genuineness of the compromise?

4. The jurisprudence behind the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is that the business transactions are to be honoured. The legislative intention is not to make people suffer incarceration only because their cheques bounced. These proceedings are to recover the cheque amount by showing teeth of a penal clause. Now, as per the above-mentioned report, the parties have settled their disputes and have compromised the matter.

5. It would be relevant to refer to the judicial precedents where based on the compromise, the convictions were set aside:

a). In Ram Prasad and Another v. State of Uttar Pardesh, Cr.A Nos. 308-309 of 1980, decided on April 21, 1980, Hon’ble Supreme Court converted the conviction from 307 IPC to 324 IPC and after that based on compromise, accepted the compounding of offence under section 324 IPC and acquitted the appellants.

b). In Ramji Lal v. State of Haryana, (1983) 1 SCC 368, Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a matter arising against the conviction under section 325 IPC, held, [5]. All the offences for which the appellants are convicted are compoundable and the compromise can be entered into with the permission of the court. Looking to the chastened attitude of the accused and the commendable attitude of the injured complainant, in order to restore harmony in the society, we accept the compromise. We grant permission to enter into the compromise and accept the same. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on both the appellants. If they are on bail, their bail-bonds will be cancelled. If they are in jail, they will be released from the jail forthwith.

c). In Mohd. Rafi v. State of U.P., 1998(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 455, Supreme Court, the convict had gone to Hon’ble Supreme Court against his conviction by the trial Court under Sections 323 and 325 of IPC, which was upheld by Sessions and High Court. After that, the convict and the victim entered into an out-of-court compromise. Hon’ble Supreme Court analyzed the parties' affidavits filed in support of the compromise and observed that parties had willingly and voluntaril