CRR-2408-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 244 Gursewak Singh Rajinder Singh and Another CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present : Mr. Judgepreet Singh Warring Mr. Yagsimant Attri, Advocate for respondent No.1 AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1. The challenge in the present criminal revision is to the order dated 21.08.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.06.2022 passed by learned and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the Act’) and to pay compensation. 2. The facts relevant as narrated in the co 138 of the NI Act are that the complainant had sold a swift car to the accused petitioner for an amount of Rs.2,60,000/ liability issued a cheque bearing No.000001 dated 12.03.2019, amounti Rs.2,60,000/- the same was dishonoured and returned with the remarks “Insufficient Funds”. Despite issuance of legal notice, the petitioner failed to make the payment 2025(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Gursewak Singh Versus Rajinder Singh and Another HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY ***** Mr. Judgepreet Singh Warring, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Yagsimant Attri, Advocate for respondent No.1 ***** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) The challenge in the present criminal revision is to the order dated 21.08.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.06.2022 passed by learned SDJM, vide which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the Act’) and to pay compensation. The facts relevant as narrated in the co 138 of the NI Act are that the complainant had sold a swift car to the accused petitioner for an amount of Rs.2,60,000/- on 17.11.2018 and in discharge of his liability issued a cheque bearing No.000001 dated 12.03.2019, amounti , in favour of the complainant. However, on presentation thereof, the same was dishonoured and returned with the remarks “Insufficient Funds”. Despite issuance of legal notice, the petitioner failed to make the payment IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-2408-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.02.2026 ....Petitioner ...Respondents AMAN CHAUDHARY , Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Yagsimant Attri, Advocate for respondent No.1 The challenge in the present criminal revision is to the order dated 21.08.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated SDJM, vide which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the Act’) and to pay The facts relevant as narrated in the complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI Act are that the complainant had sold a swift car to the accused on 17.11.2018 and in discharge of his liability issued a cheque bearing No.000001 dated 12.03.2019, amounting to , in favour of the complainant. However, on presentation thereof, the same was dishonoured and returned with the remarks “Insufficient Funds”. Despite issuance of legal notice, the petitioner failed to make the payment Date of decision: 11.02.2026 ....Petitioner ...Respondents The challenge in the present criminal revision is to the order dated 21.08.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated SDJM, vide which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the Act’) and to pay mplaint filed under Section 138 of the NI Act are that the complainant had sold a swift car to the accused- on 17.11.2018 and in discharge of his ng to , in favour of the complainant. However, on presentation thereof, the same was dishonoured and returned with the remarks “Insufficient Funds”. Despite issuance of legal notice, the petitioner failed to make the payment PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.02.13 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRR-2408-2025 within the stipul Section 138 of the NI Act, pursuant to which, he appeared and was released on bail. On finding prima facie case under Section 138 of the NI Act, notice of accusation was served upon him, to whic trial. 3. In order to prove its case, complainant CW 1, Ranjit Singh as CW2, Sukhdev Singh as CW3 and also led documentary evidence. On closure of its evidence, statement of accused Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, he denied all the allegations raised against him and pleaded innocence. However, he did not produce any evidence in his defence. 4. After scrutinizing the evidence led by the parties, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the complainant has successfully proved his case against the petitioner simple imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 138 NI Act and to pay double of the cheque amount a Aggrieved convict Additional Sessions Judge, Budhlada, vide impugned judgment dated 21.08.2025. 5. Hence, the present revision petition. 6. Learned counsel at th compromise dated 09.02.2026, Annexure A the parties, based on which CRM 359 read with Section 528 of BNS for compounding the offence. As settlement, the parties do not wish to pursue with the matter. He prays that the 2025(O&M) 2 within the stipulated period. The proceedings against him were initiated under Section 138 of the NI Act, pursuant to which, he appeared and was released on bail. On finding prima facie case under Section 138 of the NI Act, notice of accusation was served upon him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed In order to prove its case, complainant CW 1, Ranjit Singh as CW2, Sukhdev Singh as CW3 and also led documentary evidence. On closure of its evidence, statement of accused Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, he denied all the allegations raised against him and pleaded innocence. However, he did not produce any evidence in his After scrutinizing the evidence led by the parties, the trial Court the conclusion that the complainant has successfully proved his case against the petitioner-accused, and convicted and sentenced him, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 138 NI Act and to pay double of the cheque amount as compensation to the complainant. Aggrieved convict-petitioner filed appeal, which was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Budhlada, vide impugned judgment dated Hence, the present revision petition. Learned counsel at the very outset submits that in view of the compromise dated 09.02.2026, Annexure A- the parties, based on which CRM-48856-2025 has also been filed under Section 359 read with Section 528 of BNS for compounding the offence. As settlement, the parties do not wish to pursue with the matter. He prays that the ated period. The proceedings against him were initiated under Section 138 of the NI Act, pursuant to which, he appeared and was released on bail. On finding prima facie case under Section 138 of the NI Act, notice of h he pleaded not guilty and claimed In order to prove its case, complainant-Rajinder Singh examined as CW 1, Ranjit Singh as CW2, Sukhdev Singh as CW3 and also led documentary evidence. On closure of its evidence, statement of accused-petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, he denied all the allegations raised against him and pleaded innocence. However, he did not produce any evidence in his After scrutinizing the evidence led by the parties, the trial Court the conclusion that the complainant has successfully proved his case accused, and convicted and sentenced him, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 138 NI Act and to s compensation to the complainant. petitioner filed appeal, which was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Budhlada, vide impugned judgment dated Hence, the present revision petition. e very outset submits that in view of the -1 having been arrived at between 2025 has also been filed under Section 359 read with Section 528 of BNS for compounding the offence. As per the settlement, the parties do not wish to pursue with the matter. He prays that the ated period. The proceedings against him were initiated under Section 138 of the NI Act, pursuant to which, he appeared and was released on bail. On finding prima facie case under Section 138 of the NI Act, notice of h he pleaded not guilty and claimed Rajinder Singh examined as CW 1, Ranjit Singh as CW2, Sukhdev Singh as CW3 and also led documentary oner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, he denied all the allegations raised against him and pleaded innocence. However, he did not produce any evidence in his After scrutinizing the evidence led by the parties, the trial Court the conclusion that the complainant has successfully proved his case accused, and convicted and sentenced him, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 138 NI Act and to s compensation to the complainant. petitioner filed appeal, which was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Budhlada, vide impugned judgment dated e very outset submits that in view of the 1 having been arrived at between 2025 has also been filed under Section per the settlement, the parties do not wish to pursue with the matter. He prays that the PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.02.13 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRR-2408-2025 fee with regard to the same be waived off, in view of the poor financial condition of the petitioner. He has with great difficulty, managed to collect the money and settled the dispute as he wanted to put an end to the same, six years having gone by. 7. Learned counsel for the complainant factum of compromise and states that as per the settlement, the complainant has received 4,50,000/ Thus, he, on instructions, submits that there is no objection, if the prayer made by the petitioner is accepted. 8. It is apposite to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble The Supreme Court in B.V.Seshaia Law (SC) 75, wherein it was held thus: 2025(O&M) 3 fee with regard to the same be waived off, in view of the poor financial condition of the petitioner. He has with great difficulty, managed to collect the ettled the dispute as he wanted to put an end to the same, six years having gone by. Learned counsel for the complainant factum of compromise and states that as per the settlement, the complainant has received 4,50,000/- and the remaining Rs.80,000/ Thus, he, on instructions, submits that there is no objection, if the prayer made by the petitioner is accepted. It is apposite to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble The Supreme B.V.Seshaiah vs. The State of Telangana and another Law (SC) 75, wherein it was held thus: “10. In the case of M/S Meters and Instruments Private Limited & Anr. Vs Kanchan Mehta1,this court held that the nature of offence under section 138 of the N.I Act is primarily related to a civil wrong and has been specifically made a compoundable offence. The relevant paragraph of the judgment has been extracted herein: “This Court has noted that the object of the statute was to facilitate smooth functioning of busine provision is necessary as in many transactions’ cheques were issued merely as a device to defraud the creditors. Dishonor of cheque causes incalculable loss, injury and inconvenience to the Vide the Banking, Public Financial Institutio Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988 payee and credibility of business transactions suffers a setback. At the same time, it was also noted that nature of offence under Section 138 primarily related to a civil wrong and the 2002 amendment specifically made it compoundable.” 11. This is a very clear case of the parties entering into an agreement and compounding the offence to save themselves from the process of litigation. When such a step has been taken by the parties, and the law very cl do the same, the High Court then cannot override such compounding and impose its will.” fee with regard to the same be waived off, in view of the poor financial condition of the petitioner. He has with great difficulty, managed to collect the ettled the dispute as he wanted to put an end to the same, six years Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 admits the factum of compromise and states that as per the settlement, the complainant has the remaining Rs.80,000/- will be paid after 6 months. Thus, he, on instructions, submits that there is no objection, if the prayer made It is apposite to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble The Supreme h vs. The State of Telangana and another 2023 Live “10. In the case of M/S Meters and Instruments Private Limited & Anr. Vs Kanchan Mehta1,this court held that the nature of offence under section 138 of the N.I Act is primarily related to a civil wrong and has been specifically made a compoundable offence. The relevant paragraph of the judgment has been extracted herein: “This Court has noted that the object of the statute was to facilitate smooth functioning of business transactions. The provision is necessary as in many transactions’ cheques were issued merely as a device to defraud the creditors. Dishonor of cheque causes incalculable loss, injury and inconvenience to the Vide the Banking, Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988 payee and credibility of business transactions suffers a setback. At the same time, it was also noted that nature of offence under Section 138 primarily related to a civil wrong and the 2002 t specifically made it compoundable.” 11. This is a very clear case of the parties entering into an agreement and compounding the offence to save themselves from the process of litigation. When such a step has been taken by the parties, and the law very clearly allows them to do the same, the High Court then cannot override such compounding and impose its will.” fee with regard to the same be waived off, in view of the poor financial condition of the petitioner. He has with great difficulty, managed to collect the ettled the dispute as he wanted to put an end to the same, six years respondent No.2 admits the factum of compromise and states that as per the settlement, the complainant has will be paid after 6 months. Thus, he, on instructions, submits that there is no objection, if the prayer made It is apposite to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble The Supreme 2023 Live “10. In the case of M/S Meters and Instruments Private Limited & Anr. Vs Kanchan Mehta1,this court held that the nature of offence under section 138 of the N.I Act is primarily related to a civil wrong and has been specifically made a compoundable offence. The relevant paragraph of “This Court has noted that the object of the statute was to ss transactions. The provision is necessary as in many transactions’ cheques were issued merely as a device to defraud the creditors. Dishonor of cheque causes incalculable loss, injury and inconvenience ns and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988 payee and credibility of business transactions suffers a setback. At the same time, it was also noted that nature of offence under Section 138 primarily related to a civil wrong and the 2002 11. This is a very clear case of the parties entering into an agreement and compounding the offence to save themselves from the process of litigation. When such a step has been early allows them to do the same, the High Court then cannot override such PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.02.13 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRR-2408-2025 9. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of R.Rajathi (2010) 15 SCC 352, has held as under: 10. The compounding of the offence at later stages of litigation in cases under Section 138 of NI Act has also been held to be permissible by Hon'ble The Supreme Court in a ca & Anr., 2009 (14) SCALE 262, wherein it was held as under: 2025(O&M) 4 Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of (2010) 15 SCC 352, has held as under: “6. Having regard to the salutar of Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court is of the opinion that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the petitioner should be permitted to compound th committed by him under Section 138 of the Code. 7. xx xx 8. The CRL.M.P. No.12804 of 2009 in which the prayer is made by petitioner to permit him to produce affidavits sworn by him on December 1, 2008 as well as affidavit sworn by P. Kaliappan power of attorney holder of R. Rajathi on December 1, 2008, as additional documents is allowed. CRL. M.P. No.12803 of 2009 in which the petitioner has prayed to permit him to compound the offence and acquit him by setting aside the conviction recorde 726/2003 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by Learned Judicial Magistrate, Karur is allowed. The petitioner is permitted to compound the offence. The Order of conviction and sentence recorded by all the Courts are hereby set aside and petitioner is acquitted of the charge leveled against him.” The compounding of the offence at later stages of litigation in cases under Section 138 of NI Act has also been held to be permissible by Hon'ble The Supreme Court in a case of K.M. Ibrahim vs. K.P. Mohammed , 2009 (14) SCALE 262, wherein it was held as under: "11. As far as the non-obstante clause included in Section 147 of the 1881 Act is concerned, the 1881 Act being a special statute, the provisions of Section 14 overriding effect over the provisions of the Code relating to compounding of offences. 12. It is true that the application under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was made by the parties after the proceedings had been concluded b However, Section 147 of the aforesaid Act does not bar the parties from compounding an offence under Section 138 even at the appellate stage of the proceedings. Accordingly, we find no reason to reject the application under Secti of the aforesaid Act even in a proceeding under Article 136 of the Constitution." Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of K.Subramanian vs. (2010) 15 SCC 352, has held as under:- “6. Having regard to the salutary provisions of Section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court is of the opinion that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the petitioner should be permitted to compound the offence committed by him under Section 138 of the Code. xx 8. The CRL.M.P. No.12804 of 2009 in which the prayer is made by petitioner to permit him to produce affidavits sworn by him on December 1, 2008 as well as affidavit sworn by P. appan power of attorney holder of R. Rajathi on December 1, 2008, as additional documents is allowed. CRL. M.P. No.12803 of 2009 in which the petitioner has prayed to permit him to compound the offence and acquit him by setting aside the conviction recorded in Criminal case No. 726/2003 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by Learned Judicial Magistrate, Karur is allowed. The petitioner is permitted to compound the offence. The Order of conviction and sentence recorded by all the Courts are ereby set aside and petitioner is acquitted of the charge The compounding of the offence at later stages of litigation in cases under Section 138 of NI Act has also been held to be permissible by K.M. Ibrahim vs. K.P. Mohammed , 2009 (14) SCALE 262, wherein it was held as under:- obstante clause included in Section 147 of the 1881 Act is concerned, the 1881 Act being a special statute, the provisions of Section 147 will have an overriding effect over the provisions of the Code relating to 12. It is true that the application under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was made by the parties after the proceedings had been concluded before the Appellate Forum. However, Section 147 of the aforesaid Act does not bar the parties from compounding an offence under Section 138 even at the appellate stage of the proceedings. Accordingly, we find no reason to reject the application under Section 147 of the aforesaid Act even in a proceeding under Article 136 K.Subramanian vs. y provisions of Section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court is of the opinion that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the e offence 8. The CRL.M.P. No.12804 of 2009 in which the prayer is made by petitioner to permit him to produce affidavits sworn by him on December 1, 2008 as well as affidavit sworn by P. appan power of attorney holder of R. Rajathi on December 1, 2008, as additional documents is allowed. CRL. M.P. No.12803 of 2009 in which the petitioner has prayed to permit him to compound the offence and acquit him by d in Criminal case No. 726/2003 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by Learned Judicial Magistrate, Karur is allowed. The petitioner is permitted to compound the offence. The Order of conviction and sentence recorded by all the Courts are ereby set aside and petitioner is acquitted of the charge The compounding of the offence at later stages of litigation in cases under Section 138 of NI Act has also been held to be permissible by K.M. Ibrahim vs. K.P. Mohammed obstante clause included in Section 147 of the 1881 Act is concerned, the 1881 Act being a 7 will have an overriding effect over the provisions of the Code relating to 12. It is true that the application under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was made by the parties after the efore the Appellate Forum. However, Section 147 of the aforesaid Act does not bar the parties from compounding an offence under Section 138 even at the appellate stage of the proceedings. Accordingly, on 147 of the aforesaid Act even in a proceeding under Article 136 PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.02.13 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRR-2408-2025 11. Reiterating the aforesaid Hon’ble The Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S.Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H. case of dishonour of cheque, accused convicted, there is no stage prescribed for compounding of offence under Section 147 of the Act and it was observed that “It is true that the application under Section 147 of the Negoti Act was made by the parties after the proceedings had been concluded before the Appellate Forum. However, Section 147 of the aforesaid Act does not bar the parties from compounding an offence under Section 138 even at the appellate stage o the imposition of costs by the competent court is a matter of discretion, the scale of costs has been suggested in the interest of uniformity. The competent Court can of course reduce the costs circumstances of a case, while recording reasons in writing for such variance.” 12. In the peculiarity of facts and circumstances of the case and in light of the judgment in the petitioner is permitted to compound the offence. However, this Court is not inclined to accept the prayer for waiving off the compounding fee, but considering the mitigating circumstances of the petitioner brought out by his learned counsel, referred judgment and he is ordered to deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/ with the Punjab judgment of conviction/order of sentenc affirmed by the appellate Court are hereby set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charges framed against him. However, the complainant is at 2025(O&M) 5 Reiterating the aforesaid Hon’ble The Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S.Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H. case of dishonour of cheque, accused convicted, there is no stage prescribed for compounding of offence under Section 147 of the Act and it was observed that It is true that the application under Section 147 of the Negoti Act was made by the parties after the proceedings had been concluded before the Appellate Forum. However, Section 147 of the aforesaid Act does not bar the parties from compounding an offence under Section 138 even at the appellate stage of the proceedings.” It was further observed that, “Even though the imposition of costs by the competent court is a matter of discretion, the scale of costs has been suggested in the interest of uniformity. The competent Court can of course reduce the costs with regard to the specific facts and circumstances of a case, while recording reasons in writing for such variance.” In the peculiarity of facts and circumstances of the case and in light of the judgment in Damodar S.Prabhu (supra the petitioner is permitted to compound the offence. However, this Court is not inclined to accept the prayer for waiving off the compounding fee, but considering the mitigating circumstances of the petitioner brought out by his learned counsel, as noticed above, the same is reduced in view of the afore referred judgment and he is ordered to deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/ Punjab State Legal Services Authority on or before 28.02.2026. The judgment of conviction/order of sentence recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court are hereby set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charges framed against him. However, the complainant is at Reiterating the aforesaid Hon’ble The Supreme Court in the case of 2010(5) SCC 663 has held that in case of dishonour of cheque, accused convicted, there is no stage prescribed for compounding of offence under Section 147 of the Act and it was observed that It is true that the application under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was made by the parties after the proceedings had been concluded before the Appellate Forum. However, Section 147 of the aforesaid Act does not bar the parties from compounding an offence under Section 138 even at the f the proceedings.” It was further observed that, “Even though the imposition of costs by the competent court is a matter of discretion, the scale of costs has been suggested in the interest of uniformity. The competent Court with regard to the specific facts and circumstances of a case, while recording reasons in writing for such variance.” In the peculiarity of facts and circumstances of the case and in light Damodar S.Prabhu (supra), CRM-50182-2024 is allowed the petitioner is permitted to compound the offence. However, this Court is not inclined to accept the prayer for waiving off the compounding fee, but considering the mitigating circumstances of the petitioner brought out by his as noticed above, the same is reduced in view of the afore referred judgment and he is ordered to deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- as costs, State Legal Services Authority on or before 28.02.2026. The e recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court are hereby set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charges framed against him. However, the complainant is at Reiterating the aforesaid Hon’ble The Supreme Court in the case of 2010(5) SCC 663 has held that in case of dishonour of cheque, accused convicted, there is no stage prescribed for compounding of offence under Section 147 of the Act and it was observed that able Instruments Act was made by the parties after the proceedings had been concluded before the Appellate Forum. However, Section 147 of the aforesaid Act does not bar the parties from compounding an offence under Section 138 even at the f the proceedings.” It was further observed that, “Even though the imposition of costs by the competent court is a matter of discretion, the scale of costs has been suggested in the interest of uniformity. The competent Court with regard to the specific facts and circumstances of a case, while recording reasons in writing for such variance.” In the peculiarity of facts and circumstances of the case and in light s allowed the petitioner is permitted to compound the offence. However, this Court is not inclined to accept the prayer for waiving off the compounding fee, but considering the mitigating circumstances of the petitioner brought out by his as noticed above, the same is reduced in view of the afore- as costs, State Legal Services Authority on or before 28.02.2026. The e recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court are hereby set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charges framed against him. However, the complainant is at PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.02.13 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRR-2408-2025 liberty to seek cancellation of this order, in case, the petitioner doe with the terms and conditions of the compromise. 13. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. 14. Compliance report be forwarded by the Services Authority within a week after deposit of the aforesai 11.02.2026 parveen kumar Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2025(O&M) 6 liberty to seek cancellation of this order, in case, the petitioner doe with the terms and conditions of the compromise. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. Compliance report be forwarded by the Services Authority within a week after deposit of the aforesai parveen kumar Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : liberty to seek cancellation of this order, in case, the petitioner does not comply with the terms and conditions of the compromise. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. Compliance report be forwarded by the Punjab State Legal Services Authority within a week after deposit of the aforesaid amount. (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE : Yes / No : Yes / No s not comply State Legal PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.02.13 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.