CRR-146-2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 105 CRR-146-2018 Date of Decision: 05.03.2026 RANBIR SINGH ......... Peoners Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. ......... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Ms. Manisha Rani, Advocate for Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate for the peoner. Mr. Tapan Masta, Addl. A.G., Haryana. Ms. Komal Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No. 2. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. (ORAL) 1. The present revision peon has been filed seeking the se*ng aside of the judgment and order dated 28.11.2017 passed by the learned Addional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, whereby the respondent- Ra2an Singh was acqui2ed. 2. Counsel for the peoner submits that Respondent No. 2- Ra2an Singh, had earlier been convicted by the learned trial Court for the offence punishable under Secon 138 of the Negoable Instruments Act, 1881, and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of ₹2,000 and Appellate Court acqui2ed him and the said judgment is impugned here. 3. Counsel for the peoner submits that no doubt the respondent paid full cheque amount but peoner was not compensated properly as he is pursuing the ligaon since 15.05.2012 and secondly the compounding fee reducing from 15% to 10% which is sufficient ground for reversal of judgment. Counsel for the peoner-complainant submits that even 15% amount which had to be paid to legal aid as per the judgment of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H., 2010 (5) SCC 663 was not ordered in le2er and spirit and as such, to that effect the impugned order is illegal. JYOTI 2026.03.10 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRR-146-2018 4. Counsel for respondent No.2 submits that now the Hon’ble Supreme Court has diluted the scope of Damodar S. Prabhu (Supra) and it is not mandatory. She further submits that there were two cheques amounng to Rs.20,000/- and Rs.22,000/- respecvely and out of that he had already paid more than Rs.42,000/- i.e. Rs. 65,073/- as such, he should not be further burdened. In addion, he has to spend money on the legal expenses because the complainant came up before this Court. 5. State counsel submits that it is a private complaint and they have no role whatsoever and they were unnecessarily made as a party. 6. AAer going through the judgment of acqui2al by the Appellate Court; considering the cheque amount and the amount paid, it is not a case to be interfered with, as such, criminal revision peon is dismissed and the judgment dated 28.11.2017 is upheld. All pending miscellaneous applicaons, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 05.03.2026 Jyo -II Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No JYOTI 2026.03.10 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.