##PAGE1##

CRR-1241-2023 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

145 CRR-1241-2023 (O&M)

Date of decision: 13.05.2026

KARAMVEER .... PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENT(S)

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present: Mr. Ashish Grewal, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Viney Phogat, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Iqbal Mohd., Advocate

for respondent No.2.

****

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)

The present revision petition has been filed against the

judgment dated 20.04.2023 passed by the Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar

vide which the appeal preferred by the accused-petitioner against the

judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

07.09.2017/11.09.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sub

Division Bilaspur has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the accused-petitioner

had borrowed a sum of Rs.23,40,000/- from the complainant/respondent

No.2 with an assurance to return the same in near future. In order to

discharge his liability, the accused-petitioner issued a cheque bearing

No.000003 dated 01.06.2015 for a sum of Rs.7,02,000/- drawn at HDFC

Bank, in favour of the complainant-respondent No.2. On presentation of

KUSUM

2026.05.14 13:36

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

PHHC Chandigarh

CRR-1241-2023 (O&M) 2

the aforesaid cheque by the complainant with his banker, namely, HDFC

Bank, Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar, the same was not encashed

and was dishonoured with the remarks ‘Insufficient Funds’ vide a return

memo dated 10.06.2015. The accused-petitioner was served with a legal

notice dated 12.06.2015. The notice was duly received, but he

intentionally did not give any reply to the notice and not complied with

the same, leading to initiation of proceedings under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

3. In the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 filed by the complainant/respondent No.2, the

accused/petitioner was summoned to face trial under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act. The evidence was led and ultimately, the

accused/petitioner was held guilty and accordingly, convicted for the

offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,

1881 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years along with

compensation equivalent to the cheque amount, and in default of

payment of compensation, further undergo simple imprisonment for one

year.

4. Aggrieved against the said judgment of conviction and order

of sentence, the accused/petitioner preferred an appeal before the

Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar which came to be dismissed vide a

judgment dated 20.04.2023.

5. Still aggrieved, the present revision petition has been

preferred by the accused-petitioner.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that during

KUSUM

2026.05.14 13:36

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

PHHC Chandigarh

CRR-1241-2023 (O&M) 3

the pendency of the present petition, a compromise has been effected

between the parties. As against the cheque amount of Rs.7,00,000/-,

Rs.9,00,000/- has been paid vide different installments to the learned

counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 as full and final payment.

Thus, nothing remains due towards the complainant-respondent No.2. He

further contends that in view of Section 147 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act read with Section 320 Cr.P.C. where a settlement has

been effected, the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act can be compounded on account of the fact that a mutual

compromise has been effected between the parties.

7. The learned counsel for the State-respondent No.1 and the

counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 contend that as the matter

has been settled between the parties, they have no objection if the prayer

of the learned counsel for accused-petitioner for compounding the

offence under Section 138 N.I. Act is allowed and the petitioner is

acquitted of the charges framed against him.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for both the partie