IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Kuldeep Verma ….Petitioner versus State of Haryana and another ….Respondents Date of Decision: February 10, 2026 Date of Uploading: February 10, 2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.

Mr. Sarun Hans, Advocate for respondent No.2.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

The present criminal revision petition has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 21/26.02.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Tohana, in a complaint case, whereby the petitioner has been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 02 years and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/- to the complainant. Further, the petitioner has laid challenge to the impugned judgment dated 05.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, in Criminal Appeal No.CRA-79/2018, whereby appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 21/26.02.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Tohana, was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of proceedings, the petitioner and respondent No.2/ complainant have entered into a compromise deed dated 21.01.2026 (copy whereof appended as Annexure P-1 with CRM-5058-2026). Learned counsel has further submitted that an application (CRM-5059-2025) has also been filed seeking permission to compound the offence in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that since the parties have amicably settled their dispute(s), the matter may be compounded and the petitioner be acquitted of the charge(s) framed against him.

3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has ratified the factum of settlement/ compromise having been arrived at between the parties and has further vouched the genuineness of the compromise deed dated 21.01.2026 stated to be arrived between the parties. Accordingly, he has iterated that respondent No.2-complainant has no objection, in case, the offence is permitted to be compounded and the petitioner is ordered to be acquitted.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused the available record.

5. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H., AIR 2010(SC) 1907, relevant whereof reads thus:

“15. With regard to the progression of litigation in cheque bouncing cases, the learned Attorney General has urged this Court to frame guidelines for a graded scheme of imposing costs on parties who unduly delay compounding of the offence. It was submitted that the requirement of deposit of the costs will act as a deterrent for delayed composition, since at present, free and easy compounding of offences at any stage, however belated, gives an incentive to the drawer of the cheque to delay settling the cases for years. An application for compounding made after several years not only results in the system being burdened but the complainant is also deprived of effective justice. In view of this submission, we direct that the following guidelines be followed:-

THE GUIDELINES (i) In the circumstances, it is proposed as follows:

(a) That directions can be given that the Writ of Summons be suitably modified making it clear to the accused that he could make an application for compounding of the offences at the first or second hearing of the case and that if such an application is made, compounding may be allowed by the court without imposing any costs on the accused.

(b) If the accused does not make an application for compounding as aforesaid, then if an application for compounding is made before the Magistrate at a subsequent stage, compounding can be allowed subject to the condition that the accused will be required to