IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

264 CRR-1535-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 13.11.2025 Sahil Kumar Alias Sahil Goyal ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY *****

Present : Mr. S.K. Sirsa and Ms. Lalita Sharma, Advocates for the petitioner Mr. Gautam Kaile, DAG Haryana Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma, Advocate for respondent No.2 *****

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. The challenge in the present criminal revision is to the order dated 03.03.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08/09.03.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram, vide which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the Act’) and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/-

2. The facts relevant as narrated in the complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI Act are that the accused-petitioner had taken a friendly loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant-respondent No.2, in discharge of which, he had issued a cheque bearing No.037545 dated 16.01.2015 for Rs.2,00,000/-. However, on presentation thereof, the same were dishonoured and returned with the remarks “Fund Insufficient” vide memo dated 21.01.2015. 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-Mahabir examined as PW 1 and also led documentary evidence. On closure of its evidence, statement of accused-petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, he denied all the allegations raised against him and pleaded innocence. However, he did not produce any evidence in his defence.

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, Sirsa, vide impugned judgment dated 03.03.2025.

5. Hence, the present revision petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter has since been settled between the parties in Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, terms whereof has been reduced in writing and as per which, the petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation awarded by the trial Court to the complainant in cash and as on today, he states that no amount is due towards respondent No.2 with regard to dishonor of the cheque.

7. Learned counsel for complainant-respondent No.2 affirms the factum of compromise arrived at between them.

(cid:1)(cid:2) Learned counsel fo(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:7)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:14)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:18)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:19)(cid:7)(cid:3) (cid:20)(cid:7)(cid:18)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:1)(cid:4)(cid:23)(cid:2)(cid:24)(cid:2)ti(cid:18)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:26)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:18)(cid:10)(cid:27)(cid:8)(cid:10)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:19)(cid:7)(cid:19)(cid:4)(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:19)(cid:4)(cid:17)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:28)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:29)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:27)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:26)