CRR-278-2022 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 117 CRR-278-2022 Date of decision: 17.07.2026 SURESH KUMAR THROUGH LR .... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS GULAB SINGH ...RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Mayank Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Didar Kahlon, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Paramveer Singh, Advocate for the respondent. **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 27.05.2019 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Kaithal vide which the appeal preferred by the accused-petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.10.2018/05.10.2018 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Guhla has been abated. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the accused-petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- from the complainant/respondent with an assurance to return the same in near future. The accused/petitioner has further received an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the complainant through RTGS on 04.11.2016. In order to discharge his liability, the accused-petitioner issued two cheques bearing Nos.007375 dated 20.02.2017 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and 007377 dated 10.03.2017 for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-, in favour of the complainant- respondent. On presentation of the aforesaid cheques by the complainant with his banker, namely, Union Bank of India, Branch Cheeka, the same KUSUM 2026.07.18 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh CRR-278-2022 2 were not encashed and were dishonoured with the remarks ‘Funds Insufficient’ vide a return memo dated 21.02.2017/14.03.2017. The accused-petitioner was served with a legal notice dated 16.03.2017 for making the payment within 15 days of receipt of the said notice but the accused-petitioner failed to do so, leading to initiation of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 3. In the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed by the complainant/respondent, the accused/petitioner was summoned to face trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The evidence was led and ultimately, the accused/petitioner was held guilty and accordingly, convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year along with compensation to the tune of Rs.22,00,000/-. 4. Aggrieved against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused/petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal which came to be abated vide a judgment dated 27.05.2019. 5. Still aggrieved, the present revision petition has been preferred by the accused-petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that during the pendency of the present petition, a compromise has been effected between the parties. As against the cheque amount of Rs. 22,00,000/-, a cheque for a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- has been handed over to the learned counsel for the complainant-respondent as full and final payment. Thus, KUSUM 2026.07.18 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh CRR-278-2022 3 nothing remains due towards the complainant-respondent. He further contends that in view of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, where a settlement has been effected, the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be compounded on account of the fact that a mutual compromise has been effected between the parties. 7. The learned counsel for the complainant-respondent contends that as the matter has been settled between the parties, he has no objection if the prayer of the learned counsel for accused-petitioner for compounding the offence under Section 138 N.I. Act is allowed and the petitioner is acquitted of the charges framed against him. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. 9. This Hon’ble Court in ‘Ramesh Chander Vs. State of Haryana and another, 2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 245’ held as under:- “4. As per the provisions of Section 147 of the Act, the offence under Section 138 is compoundable. Section 147 reads as under: “Offence to be compoundable Notwithstanding anything contained in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973(2 of 1974), every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable”. 5. The compounding of the offence under Section 138 can be done during the trial of the case as well as by the High Court or Court of Session while acting in the exercise of its power of revision under Section 401 Criminal Procedure Code Reference may be made to Section 320(6) Criminal Procedure Code in this regard. 6. Further, under Section 320(8) Criminal Procedure Code the composition of an offence shall have the effect of acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded.” KUSUM 2026.07.18 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh CRR-278-2022 4 10. This Court in 'Vatsa Electronics Vs. Pala Ram & Anr. decided on 09.03.2022 in CRR-1585-2019' has also held that once a settlement is being effected, then in terms of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 320 Cr.P.C., the accused ought to be acquitted as the offence stands compounded. 11. In view of the above, since, the parties have voluntarily settled the disputes between themselves, it is a fit case for allowing them to compound the offence. 12. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and subject to payment of Rs.25,000/- as costs to be deposited with Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association, Account No.65035682434, State Bank of India, IFSC:-SBIN0050306, the judgment dated 27.05.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal as well as the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.10.2018/05.10.2018 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Guhla, are hereby set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 13. Since the main petition has been disposed of no order needs to be passed in the pending application(s), if any. (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE 17.07.2026 Kusum Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No KUSUM 2026.07.18 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh