IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

147+266 CRR-707-2025 (O&M)

4Date of decision: 22.12.2025 Raj Kamal ...Petitioner Versus M/s Darshan Lal and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner.

Mr. Sunil Doda, Advocate for respondent No.1/complainant. Mr. Durgesh Garg, AAG, Punjab.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. CRM-47904-2025 Prayer in this application is for compounding the offence in view of the fact that the parties have amicably settled their dispute.

Since the prayer made in this application has direct bearing on the main revision petition, the application is disposed of and let the main case, which is also listed today, be taken up.

2. CRR-707-2025 (O&M)

The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence, both dated 28.02.2017, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Abohar in complaint bearing No. 1152-2 of 2013, titled as M/s Darshan Lal Chetan Kumar Commission Agents vs. Raj Kamal, filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘N. I. Act’), whereby the petitioner was held guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the N. I. Act and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- with default clause. The petitioner has also laid challenge to the judgment dated 13.02.2025, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka, whereby the appeal of the petitioner had been dismissed.

3. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this revision petition are that the petitioner in discharge of his liability towards the complainant had issued a cheque bearing No. 920011 dated 20.06.2013 for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- drawn on Punjab and Sindh Bank, Abohar with an assurance that the same would be honoured on presentation but it dishonoured due to ‘funds insufficient’. He was served with a legal notice dated 25.06.2013 but he failed to make payment within the time stipulated. Aggrieved from the same, the complainant filed the aforesaid complaint under Section 138 of N. I. Act, in which, the petitioner was held guilty and sentenced as mentioned above. His appeal was also dismissed by the learned appellate Court. Hence, the present revision petition.

4. Now the petitioner has filed aforesaid application bearing number CRM-47904-2025 for compounding the offence for which he has been held guilty and convicted.

5. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that an amicable settlement has been arrived at between the petitioner and respondent No. 1/complainant, vide compromise deed dated 24.11.2025 (Annexure A-1). In pursuance of the said settlement, the entire disputed amount has been given by the petitioner to respondent No. 1. It is submitted that respondent No. 1 also admits the factum of the above stated settlement having been arrived between the parties and about receipt of entire disputed amount and therefore, he deserves to be granted permission to compound the offence.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1/complainant has affirmed the factum of receiving the entire disputed amount from the petitioner and has submitted that it has no objection if the offence is compounded in favour of the petitioner and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by learned trial Court and affirmed by learned appellate Court are quashed and set aside.

7. Section 147 of N. I. Act makes all offences under the N. I. Act as compoundable offences. It is well settled proposition of law by now that in view of the provisions contained under this Section read with Section 320 of Cr.P.C., a compromise arrived inter se parties can be accepted and the offence committed under Section 138 of N. I. Act, can be ordered to be compounded even after conviction. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment dated 0