IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

300 CRR-2192-2025 (O&M) Decided on : 06.11.2025 RUKMANI DEVI . . .Petitioner Versus KIRTI SHARMA AND ANOTHER . . .Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY PRESENT: Mr. Akash Manocha, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. B.S. Saroha, DAG, Haryana.

****

AMAN CHAUDHARY , J. (Oral)

1. The challenge in the present criminal revision is to the order dated 25.08.2025 passed by learned Session Court, Ambala, dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.09.2021 and 10.09.2021 passed by learned Special Railway Magistrate-cum-Judicial Ist Class, Ambala, vide which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and to pay a cheque amount of Rs.80,000/- 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 took a friendly loan of Rs.80,000/- from the complainant. For this purpose, the petitioner-accused issued a cheque No.038732 dated 06.11.2017, amounting to Rs.80,000/- to the complainant to discharge part liability. However, on presentation thereof, the same were dishonoured and returned with the remarks “Funds Insufficient”. Despite issuance of legal notice, the petitioner failed to make the payment within the stipulated period. The proceedings against her were initiated under Section 138 of the NI Act, pursuant to which, she appeared and was released on bail. On finding prima facie case under Section 138 of the NI Act, notice of accusation was served upon her, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. In order to prove its case, the complainant examined herself as CW1 and also tendered certain documents. On closure of evidence, statement of accused-petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, she denied all the allegations raised against her and pleaded innocence. In her defence, the accused did not examine any witness.

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 her, 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 25.08.2025.

5. Hence, the present revision petition.

6. As is recorded in the order dated 16.09.2025, 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 29.09.2025 has been received from the Learned Special Railway Magistrate Haryana-cum- 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 paid the entire liability with great difficulty, a fact not disputed by the learned counsel and prays for waiving off the remaining compounding fee, in view of the fact that she has a clean record and is not involved in any other case.

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 the case of M/S Meters and Instruments Private Limited & Anr. Vs Kanchan Mehta1,this court held that the nature of offence under section 138 of the N.I Act is primarily related to a civil wrong and has been specifically made a compoundable offence. The relevant paragraph of the judgment has been extracted herein:

“This Court has noted that th