IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

243 CRR-416-2021 (O&M)

Date of decision: 08.05.2026 Girish Mittal @ Garish Mittal ...Petitioner Versus Vinod Kumar Sehgal and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Ms. Neeru Bansal, Advocate and Mr. Rohit Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Arun Gupta, Advocate for respondent No. 1.

Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. CRM-10377-2021 Prayer in this application is for compounding the offence in view of the fact that the parties have amicably settled their dispute.

Since the prayer made in this application has direct bearing on the main revision petition, the application is disposed of and let the main case, which is also listed today, be taken up.

2. CRR-416-2021 (O&M)

The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence, both dated 10.07.2019, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajpura in complaint bearing No. COMA-803-2017, titled as Vinod Kumar Sehgal v. Girish Mittal filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘N.

I. Act’), whereby the petitioner was held guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the N. I. Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.45,000/-. The petitioner has also laid challenge to the judgment dated 04.03.2020, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, whereby the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court was affirmed and the sentence of the petitioner was reduced to one year, while maintaining the compensation amount as awarded by the learned trial Court.

3. The petitioner has filed aforesaid application bearing number CRM-10377-2021 for compounding the offence for which he has been held guilty and convicted on ground that the dispute stands amicably settled between him and respondent No.1/complainant.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that an amicable settlement has been arrived at between the petitioner and respondent No. 1/complainant. In pursuance of the said settlement, the entire disputed amount has been given by the petitioner to the respondent No. 1 by way of a demand draft. It is submitted that respondent No. 1 also admits the factum of the above stated settlement having been arrived between the parties and about receipt of entire disputed amount and therefore, he deserves to be granted permission to compound the offence.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1/complainant has affirmed the factum of receiving the entire disputed amount from the petitioner and has submitted that he has no objection if the offence is compounded in favour of the petitioner and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by learned trial Court and affirmed by learned appellate Court are quashed and set aside.

6. Section 147 of N. I. Act makes all offences under this Act as compoundable offences. It is well settled proposition of law by now that in view of the provisions contained under this Section, a compromise arrived inter se parties can be accepted and the offence committed under Section 138 of N. I. Act, can be ordered to be compounded even after conviction. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment dated 02.03.2022 pronounced by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Misc. (main) petition No. 107 of 2022 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. titled as Hiranand Shastri Vs. Ram Rattan Thakur and another, wherein it was observed that the judgment of conviction recorded under Section 138 of N. I. Act can be recalled, in view of the specific provisions contained under Section 147 of the Act, which provide for compounding of offence allegedly committed under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Similar proposition of law was laid down in the judgment dated 21.12.2021 in CRM-M-No. 2499-2021 in Geeta Devi