IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 21.04.2026 SATPAL ... PETITIONER Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER .. RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Ajit Sihag, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral)

CRM-17056-2026

1. This application has been filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 198 days in filing the revision petition.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 198 days in filing the revision petition is hereby condoned.

CRR-1034-2026 (O&M)

1. This revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 23.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of the sentence dated 05.10.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Bhiwani in CIS No.COMA-5578-2014 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NI Act’) has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of eleven months and to pay compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation in terms of Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. to the complainant/respondent and in default thereof, he has to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of six months. It is submitted that the parties have amicable resolved their dispute and a compromise (Annexure P-1) has been effected between them. It is further submitted that the petitioner has paid the entire amount of the cheque in question to the complainant/respondent No.2 and nothing is outstanding. He also submits 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 NI Act can be compounded on account of the fact that a mutual compromise has been effected between the parties.

3. Notice of motion.

4. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jangra, AAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1.

5. Mr. Ram Niwas Sharma, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 and filed Vakalatnama on his behalf in Court, which is taken on record. He affirmed the factum of compromise between the parties and submits that nothing is due towards the petitioner. He also submits that respondent No.2 has no objection if the petition is allowed and the petitioner is acquitted of the charges framed against him.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the material available on record.

7. The allegations against the petitioner are that the cheque issued by him for an amount of Rs.5 lakhs was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. The liability under the NI Act is primarily civil in nature. Now the matter has been compromised and the petitioner has paid the entire amount to the complainant/respondent no.2.

8. It is settled law that the proceedings initiated under 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.

9. 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. Reference can be drawn from the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Meters and Instruments Private Limited and another Vs. Kanchan Mehta (2018) 1 SCC 560, wherein following observations have been made:-

“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 ma