IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 13.11.2025 ANITA RANI ...PETITIONER VERSUS AKASHDEEP AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present: Mr. Piyush Setia, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Ajay Kumar Dahiya, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab.

****

H.S.GREWAL,J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner has filed the present revision petition against the impugned judgment dated 04.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka, and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.01.2018 passed by the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Abohar, whereby, the petitioner has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay the fine of Rs.1,000/-. In case of default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

2. Along with the main petition, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 359 read with Section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, with a prayer to compound the offence under Section 138 of the “Act”.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that to the notice of the Court that matter has been compromised between the parties vide settlement agreement dated 07.11.2025 and the entire settled amount has already been paid by the petitioner to respondent No.1.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Ajay Kumar Dahiya, Advocate, and Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab, accept notice on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has accepted the factum of compromise and further stated that entire settled amount is received by respondent No.1 and he has no objection if the offence punishable under Section 138 NI Act is compounded and the petitioner may be acquitted. Prayer has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present petition may be allowed.

7. It is settled law that the proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the NI Act are quasi-criminal in nature and the object and purpose of this enactment is to provide a compensatory mechanism for expeditious recovery of money as opposed to punishing the accused. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in R. Vijayan Vs. Baby (2012) 1 SCC 260 has considered the said issue and come to the conclusion that punishing the offender is secondary concern.

8. The amendment carried out in the year 2002 in the NI Act intended to make the nature of offence under Section 138 of the NI Act as a civil wrong while making it compoundable. A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Meters and Instruments Private Limited and another Vs. Kanchan Mehta (2018) 1 SCC 560, speaking through Justice A.K. Goel has held as under:-

“7. This Court has noted that the object of the statute was to facilitate smooth functioning of business transactions. The provision is necessary as in many transactions’ cheques were issued merely as a device to defraud the creditors. Dishonour of cheque causes incalculable loss, injury and inconvenience to the Vide the Banking, Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988 payee and credibility of business transactions suffers a setback. At the same time, it was also noted that nature of offence under Section 138 primarily related to a civil wrong and the 2002 amendment specifically made it compoundable…...

xxxx xxxx xxxx

18.2. The object of the provision being primarily compensatory, punitive element being mainly with the object of enforcing the compensatory element, compounding at the initial stage has to be encouraged but is not debarred at later stage subject to appropriate compensation as may be found acceptable to the parties or the court.

18.3. Though compounding requires consent of both parties, even in absence of such consent, the court, in the interests of justice, on being satisfied that the complai