THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.2724 of 2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 04.11.2025 Ajesh Kumar Sharma ..... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present: Mr. Dinesh Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)

1. Present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner wherein he has challenged the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar dated 24.04.2025 dismissing appeal preferred by the petitioner against the conviction and order of sentence dated 16/21.10.2023 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jhajjar whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act for 01 year simple imprisonment and to pay a sum of Rs.6 lacs as cheque amount and further direct to pay Rs. 2 lacs as compensation to the complainant/respondent No.2.

2. The case as enumerated from the facts is that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the NI Act) was filed against the petitioner by respondent No.2 on the allegations that the accused-petitioner borrowed an amount of Rs.26 lacs as friendly loan from complainant-respondent No.2. In order to discharge his legal liability, the petitioner issued three post dated cheques dated 05.11.2017, 05.12.2017 and 05.01.2018 for a sum of Rs.10 lacs/- drawn at Corporation Bank, Branch Janakpuri, New Delhi in favour of the complainant. However, on presentation, the said cheques were dishonoured with the remark “Funds Insufficent”. Legal notice was sent by the complainant to the petitioner, but the petitioner failed to make the payment of the cheque amount and thus, a complaint was filed. On the conclusion of trial, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence awarded by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, the petitioner assailed the same by way of filing an appeal before the learned Appellate Court. Learned Appellate Court, finding no merit in the appeal, dismissed the same by upholding the conviction of the petitioner vide its order dated 24.04.2025. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present revision petition challenging the above said orders.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the parties have already entered into a compromise and an amount of Rs.22,00,000/- has already been paid to the complainant-respondent No.2 by the petitioner as full and final settlement and now nothing is due against him. He further submits that in view of the settlement effected between the parties, the petitioner be allowed to compound the offence and he be acquitted of the charges under Section 138 of the Act and the order under challenge in the present petition be set aside. He has placed reliance on the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Reddy Kallem vs. The State of Haryana and another, Law Finder Doc Id# 2557645, wherein, it has been held that there is no bar to seek the compounding of the offence at later stage of criminal proceedings including after conviction. He has further submitted that the petitioner is unable to pay the compensation as per requirement in the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjabij Tari Vs. Kishore S. Borcar and Another, 2025 Livelaw (SC) 952. Thus, he prays for dispensing with the condition of deposit of 7.5% of the compensation amount keeping in view the poor financial condition of the petitioner.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl. A.G., Haryana notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Ravi Kumar Girdhwal, Advocate, has put in appearance and filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant/respondent No.2.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has affirmed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitte