IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

2026:PHHC:057809

106+202 CRR-3692-2018 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 17.04.2026.

Nirmal Singh ...Petitioner.

Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents.

***

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR .......

Present: Mr. D.S. Virk, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. R.K. Singla, Addl., A.G., Haryana.

Mr. M.K. Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2.

***

SUKHVINDER KAUR , J .

1. By way of this revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 08.10.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, vide which the judgment of conviction dated 05.08.2016 and order of sentence dated 06.08.2016 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Guhla, has been upheld, whereby the petitioner was held guilty for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and was convicted.

2. In CRR-3692-2018, an application i.e. CRM-14587-2026 along with affidavit of applicant has been filed for compounding of offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act, on the basis of One time Settlement Scheme, as per which the applicant had already deposited Rs.1,70,000/-.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per One time Settlement with respondent-bank, petitioner/ applicant had already deposited Rs.1,70,000/-. He prays for compounding of the offence and acceptance of the revision petition.

4. Learned counsel representing the complainant/ respondent No.2 has admitted that as per the One Time Settlement Scheme the entire matter has been settled and he has specific instructions from the complainant/ respondent No.2 that he has no objection in case the present revision petition is allowed and the petitioner is acquitted of the notice of accusation. He has also produced on record copy of letter dated 25.05.2023 of Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank about compromising loan account under One Time Settlement Scheme and recommending for withdrawing the case against the petitioner.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the relevant material placed on record.

6. As submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of proceedings, One Time Settlement was effected between the parties and as per aforesaid settlement the due amount has already been paid by the petitioner to the respondent and now nothing is due towards him, which is conceded by learned counsel for the respondent.

7. The object and purpose of proceeding initiated under the Act is to provide a compensatory mechanism for expeditious recovery of money and not just punishing the offender, which is a secondary concern.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Meters and Instruments Private Limited and another Vs. Kanchan Mehta (2018) 1 SCC 560, 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 complainant has been duly compensated, can in its discretion close the proceedings and discharge the accuse