IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

124 CRR-1050-2026 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 22.04.2026 DES RAJ ....PETITIONER Versus PARKASH PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ANR .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL.

Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

H.S.GREWAL , J (ORAL)

CRM-17277-2026 and CRR-1050-2026

1. The petitioner has filed the present revision petition against the impugned judgment dated 01.05.2018 and order of conviction dated 03.05.2018 passed by the learned JMIC, Karnal 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 rigorous imprisonment for a period of 06 months and to pay the cheque amount of Rs. 88500/- as compensation. Thereafter, the said order was upheld by the ld. Appellate Court vide judgment dated 20.03.2026.

2. Along with the main petition, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 482 Cr.P.C (Section 528 of B.N.S.S) with a prayer to compound the offence under Section 138 of the Act.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant has filed the present complaint stating that the grandsons of the accused, namely Yash, Ansh, and Prikshit, are students in his school. At the time of their admission, the accused undertook to pay their school fees and other charges. However, he repeatedly defaulted in making the payments. Despite several requests, the accused failed to clear the outstanding dues, though he later assured at the school office that all dues would be paid by 31.12.2015. In discharge of his liability, the accused issued cheque No. 487996 dated 30.10.2015 for ₹

88,500/- drawn on State Bank of India. Upon presentation, the cheque was dishonoured vide memo dated 04.11.2015 with the remarks “Funds Insufficient.” The complainant thereafter issued a legal notice dated 30.11.2015 demanding payment within the stipulated period, but the accused neither made the payment nor responded to the notice.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a photocopy of ₹

demand draft amounting to 60,000/-, issued in favour of the respondent. Prayer has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present petition may be allowed.

5. Notice of motion.

6. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jangra, AAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State.

7. Mr. Sukhdeep Singh, Advocate appears and has filed his memo of appearance on behalf of the respondent No.1 in the Court today and the same is taken on record. He further submits that he has no objection if the offence punishable under Section 138 NI Act is compounded and the petitioner may be acquitted.

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