IN THE 129 Parminder Singh Krishan Lal Bajaj CORAM : HON'BLE Present :- Mr. for ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, The of conviction and Magistrate First the commission Act, 1881 and had period of six months Rs.1,05,000/- under 38-2017. 2 The judgment of conviction Additional Sessions Criminal Appeal 3 Aggrieved 4. Learned offence and suspension compromise arrived Krishan Lal Bajaj 1302-2026 as Mark THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AT CHANDIGARH CRR-1305 Date of decision: Singh Grewal VERSUS Bajaj and Another HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD Mr. Prabhjot Singh, Advocate, the petitioner. ***** BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been and order of sentence dated 01.07.2019 Class, Fazilka, whereby the petitioner of offence under Section 138 of had been sentenced to undergo months and has also been directed under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. in criminal The appeal preferred by the petitioner conviction and order of sentence Sessions Judge, Fazilka, vide judgment Appeal No.243 of 2019. Aggrieved thereof, the instant petition earned counsel for the petitioner is suspension of the sentence awarded arrived at between the petitioner and Bajaj. The original compromise deed Mark ‘X’. PUNJAB & HARYANA CHANDIGARH 1305-2026 (O&M) decision: 18.05.2026. ...Petitioner(s) ...Respondent(s) VINOD S. BHARDWAJ been filed against the judgment 07.2019 passed by the Judicial petitioner had been convicted for of the Negotiable Instruments rigorous imprisonment for a directed to pay a compensation of criminal complaint No.NACT- petitioner against the aforesaid sentence was also dismissed by the judgment dated 01.05.2026 passed in petition has been filed. is seeking compounding of the awarded to him, on the basis of and the respondent No.1, namely deed is taken on record in CRR- SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.05.19 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 129 CRR-1305-2026 (O&M) -2- 4 Notice of motion. 5 Mr. Sachin Bhardwaj, Advocate, enters appearance and files power of attorney on behalf of respondent No.1. 6. Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Sr.DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2-State. 7. Statement of Mr. Sachin Bhardwaj, Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 has also been recorded and is placed on record as Mark ‘A’, wherein he stated that the respondent No.1/complainant as per compromise deed dated 06.05.2026 has settled the dispute and received the payment and in view thereof, respondent No.1/complainant has no objection if the offence is compounded and the impugned orders are set aside. The relevant part of the compromise deed is extracted as under:- “1) That first party has borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- through cheque no.011804 dated 18/02/2014 drawn on Axis Bank, Branch Fazilka from the second party by way of temporary friendly loan and in order to make part payment of principal borrowed amount Parminder Singh issued two cheques bearing No.168439, dated 28/10/2016 for Rs.95,000/- and cheque no.168435, dated 12/11/2016 for Rs.90,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Branch Bathinda Road, Fazilka in favour of second party Krishan Lal Bajaj. On presentation, the said cheques were dishonored, accordingly complaint titled as "Krishan Lal Bajaj versus Parminder Singh Grewal" under section 138 of N.I. Act. was filed against the first party by 2nd party, in which Parminder Singh was convicted vide order dated 01/07/2019 by court of Sh. Insan, the then Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Fazilka. Thereafter, Parminder Singh presented an appeal which was also dismissed vide order dated 01/05/2026 by the court of Ms.Pamelpreet Grewal Kahal, Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka and now SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.05.19 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 129 CRR-1305-2026 (O&M) -3- Parminder Singh is in judicial custody since 01/05/2026. 2) That the second party has also filed a civil suit for recovery titled as "Krishan Lal Bajaj versus Parminder Singh" and the same was decreed on 28/10/2022 and on the basis of above said decree the second party has also filed an execution application on the basis of above said decree and the same is pending in the court of Ms. Himanshi Galhotra, Ld. Additional Civil Judge Senior Division, Fazilka and the same is fixed for 27/05/2026. That now with the efforts and intervention of panchayat and respectable persons of locality a compromise has been effected between the parties vide which 1st party has paid Rs.4,40,000/- (Rs.Four Lakh Forty Thousand only) as full and final settlement detailed as :-Rs.4,00,000/- through Demand Drafts i.e. through DD No.008261 an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, DD no.008259, Rs.1,95,000/-, DD no.008260 Rs.1,05,000/- dated 06/05/2026 of Punjab National Bank, Branch, Fazilka and Rs.40,000/- in cash to 2nd party and now second party has no claim, right, title or interest left against the first party in respect of the present dispute. 3) That the Second Party/Complainant specifically declares that except the present matter, he is not in possession of any other cheque, pronote, document, security paper, signed paper or any other article/document belonging to the First Party/Accused. The Second Party further undertakes that after execution of the present compromise and receipt of the settled amount, he shall neither file nor pursue any civil, criminal or any other proceedings/claim against the First Party in future. 4) That the second party hereby consents to the setting aside of conviction and compounding of offence under Section 138 N.I. Act. 5) That second party has no objection if the criminal revision is allowed and the first party is acquitted by the Hon’ble High Court. 6) That the second party has no objection if the sentence SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.05.19 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 129 CRR-1305-2026 (O&M) -4- awarded to the first party is suspended during the pendency of the revision petition and he is ordered to be released on bail by the Hon'ble High Court. 7) The second party has also received the above said decreetal amount from the first party today and nothing is due towards Parminder Singh Grewal. The second party also bound to withdraw the above said Execution which is pending in the court of Ms. Himanshi Galhotra, Ld. Additional Civil Judge Senior Division, Fazilka. 8) That on the basis of said compromise the 1st party shall adopt appropriate proceedings before the court of competent jurisdiction for quashing the above said order and in the 2nd party shall be bound to suffer statement for confirmation of above said compromise as well as no objection for quashing of above said order, wherever it will be required, if the 2nd party fails or avoid to make such statement then this compromise shall be deemed to statement of the second party. 9) That both the parties have effected compromise voluntarily, without any pressure, coercion and with their sweet will and the compromise is genuine.” 8. Thus, from a perusal of the above, it is evident that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. The respondent No.1/complainant, Krishan Lal Bajaj, has admittedly received the entire amount of the cheque in question and no sum now remains due or payable by the petitioner. 9. Counsel for the respondent No.1-complainant, on instructions also does not dispute the aforesaid fact and thus he has no objection to the compounding of the offence. A separate statement of the counsel has also been recorded stating that the amount of the cheque has been received by the respondent No.1 and that he has no objection to the compounding of the SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.05.19 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 129 CRR-1305-2026 (O&M) -5- offence. 10. This Court, vide judgment dated 17.12.2025 passed in CRM- 5142-2025 in CRR-1436-2022 titled Gursewak Singh v. Punjab Agriculture Development Ltd., has held that the complete and comprehensive resolution of a dispute marks the finest hour of justice. In proceedings arising out of cheque dishonour, once the liability arising from the dishonoured cheque stands discharged in its entirety and the complainant has received the amount due, in such circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings would not advance any cause of justice. The relevant extract thereof reads thus: - “32. The object and purpose underlying the NI Act, particularly post- 2002 amendments, further fortify this conclusion. Cheque dishonour cases are predominantly compensatory in nature. The penal provision is intended as a deterrent to ensure the credibility of negotiable instruments and the smooth functioning of commercial transactions and not as a means of retributive incarceration. Once the monetary liability stands discharged, the continuation of criminal proceedings would neither advance public interest nor subserve the ends of justice. On the contrary, it would frustrate the very legislative policy of de- clogging courts and encouraging early resolution of commercial disputes.” 11. Thus, the settled position of law is that the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is compoundable by virtue of Section 147 of the said Act. The legislative intent underlying the incorporation of Section 147 is to facilitate amicable resolution of disputes arising out of dishonour of cheques and to accord primacy to the SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.05.19 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 129 CRR-1305-2026 (O&M) -6- compensatory object of the statute over its penal consequences. Once the parties have voluntarily settled their dispute and the liability under the dishonoured cheque stands fully discharged, the compounding of the offence not only aligns with the statutory mandate but also subserves the ends of justice by bringing finality to the litigation and avoiding needless continuation of criminal proceedings. 12. In view of the aforesaid, judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.07.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Fazilka, and the judgment dated 01.05.2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner are set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 13. The petitioner, if confined in jail and not required in any other case, shall be released forthwith, in accordance with law. 14. The present revision petition stands allowed in above terms. Accordingly, CRM-21695-2026 seeking compounding of the offences also stands allowed. 15. Since the main case itself has been decided, CRM-21694-2026 seeking suspension of sentence has been rendered infructuous and is disposed of as such. May 18, 2026. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) Sumit Gusain JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.05.19 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document