CRR-1260 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 115 Ajay Kiryana Store and another M/s M.R. Enterprises through its Proprietor Coram : Present: Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. CRM-19872 Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay of 745 days in filing the present main criminal revision. of the respondent and submits that he has no objection if the present application is allowed. submissions made, the delay of 745 days in filing the main crimina petition is hereby condoned. CRM-19873 1260-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Ajay Kiryana Store and another Versus M.R. Enterprises through its Proprietor Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Sandeep Kumar Bokoua, Advocate, for the respondent. **** Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (Oral) 19872-2025 Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay of 745 days in filing the present main criminal revision. Notice in the application. Mr. Sandeep Kumar Bokoua, Advoca of the respondent and submits that he has no objection if the present application is allowed. For the reasons mentioned in the application and in view of the submissions made, the delay of 745 days in filing the main crimina petition is hereby condoned. Application stands disposed of. 19873-2025 Application is allowed, as prayed for. The compromise marked as Annexure P - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-1260-2025 (O&M) Decided on:14.05.2025 ...Petitioner M.R. Enterprises through its Proprietor ...Respondent Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj Mr. Sandeep Kumar Bokoua, Advocate, Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay of 745 days in filing the present Mr. Sandeep Kumar Bokoua, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent and submits that he has no objection if the present For the reasons mentioned in the application and in view of the submissions made, the delay of 745 days in filing the main criminal revision Application stands disposed of. Application is allowed, as prayed for. The compromise marked as Annexure P-1 is taken on record. 2025 (O&M) ...Petitioners ...Respondent Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay of 745 days in filing the present te, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent and submits that he has no objection if the present For the reasons mentioned in the application and in view of the l revision VINOD KUMAR 2025.05.15 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1260 CRR-1260-2025 (O&M) 1. the order of conviction and sentence dated Court and order dated the order dated 2. Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the NI Act) was filed against the petitioner Mustard Oil and the petitioners had purch amount of Rs.2,64,265/ amount in the due course of business. In discharge of its legally enforceable liability, the petitioners had issued cheque no.003368 dated 13.1 of Rs.2,64,265/ Bank, Sunam, District Sangrur with an assurance that the same would be honoured as and when presented for encashment. However, on presentation, the said cheque wa 29.11.2017. Thereafter, the respondent issue despite that, the petitioners failed to make the payment was filed. After trial, the trial petitioner Ajay Kumar S/o Madan Lal period of one year and he was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,64,265/ to the respondent cheque in question to undergo simple imprisonment for period of one month. conviction and sentence awarded by learned JMIC, the petitioner same by way of filing an appeal before the learned Appellate Court. Learned Appellate Court, finding no merit in the appeal, dismissed the same by upholding the conviction and sentence of the petitioner vide its order dated 1260-2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) Present revision petition has been fi the order of conviction and sentence dated 11.02.2022 Court and order dated 02.03.2023, whereby, appeal filed by the petitioner the order dated 11.02.2022, was dismissed. The case as enumerated from the facts is that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the NI Act) was filed against the petitioners by averring that the respondent Mustard Oil and the petitioners had purchased oil from the respondent for an amount of Rs.2,64,265/- on credit against bill and promised to pay the said amount in the due course of business. In discharge of its legally enforceable liability, the petitioners had issued cheque no.003368 dated 13.1 of Rs.2,64,265/- from his account no.19750100039444 maintained with Federal Bank, Sunam, District Sangrur with an assurance that the same would be honoured as and when presented for encashment. However, on presentation, the said cheque was dishonoured with remarks “Funds Insufficient” . Thereafter, the respondent issued despite that, the petitioners failed to make the payment was filed. After trial, the trial Court convicted the petitioner petitioner Ajay Kumar S/o Madan Lal to undergo one year and he was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,64,265/ to the respondent alongwith interest @ 9% per annum cheque in question and in default of payment of compensation, he was made liable to undergo simple imprisonment for period of one month. conviction and sentence awarded by learned JMIC, the petitioner same by way of filing an appeal before the learned Appellate Court. Learned Appellate Court, finding no merit in the appeal, dismissed the same by upholding the conviction and sentence of the petitioner vide its order dated - 2 - revision petition has been filed by the petitioner impugning 11.02.2022 passed by learned trial , whereby, appeal filed by the petitioners against enumerated from the facts is that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the NI Act) was by averring that the respondent-firm was dealing in ased oil from the respondent for an on credit against bill and promised to pay the said amount in the due course of business. In discharge of its legally enforceable liability, the petitioners had issued cheque no.003368 dated 13.10.2017 for a sum from his account no.19750100039444 maintained with Federal Bank, Sunam, District Sangrur with an assurance that the same would be honoured as and when presented for encashment. However, on presentation, the s dishonoured with remarks “Funds Insufficient” on dated d a legal notice dated 18.12.2017 but despite that, the petitioners failed to make the payment and ultimately complaint Court convicted the petitioners and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a one year and he was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,64,265/ % per annum from the date of issuance of and in default of payment of compensation, he was made liable to undergo simple imprisonment for period of one month. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence awarded by learned JMIC, the petitioners assailed t same by way of filing an appeal before the learned Appellate Court. Learned Appellate Court, finding no merit in the appeal, dismissed the same by upholding the conviction and sentence of the petitioner vide its order dated 11.02.2022 led by the petitioner impugning passed by learned trial against enumerated from the facts is that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the NI Act) was firm was dealing in ased oil from the respondent for an on credit against bill and promised to pay the said amount in the due course of business. In discharge of its legally enforceable 0.2017 for a sum from his account no.19750100039444 maintained with Federal Bank, Sunam, District Sangrur with an assurance that the same would be honoured as and when presented for encashment. However, on presentation, the on dated a legal notice dated 18.12.2017 but and ultimately complaint and sentenced imprisonment for a one year and he was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,64,265/- om the date of issuance of and in default of payment of compensation, he was made liable Aggrieved by the assailed the same by way of filing an appeal before the learned Appellate Court. Learned Appellate Court, finding no merit in the appeal, dismissed the same by upholding 11.02.2022. VINOD KUMAR 2025.05.15 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1260 Hence, the petiti revision petition challenging the above said orders. 3. parties have settled the dispute and entire amount has been paid by the petitioner to the complainant submits that in view of the settlement effected between the parties be allowed to compound the offence and Section 138 of the Act and the orders under challenge in the present revision petition be set aside. He has placed reliance on the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Law Finder Doc Id# 2557645, wherein, it has been held that there is no bar to seek the compounding of the offence at later stage of criminal proceedings including after conviction. He has f no source of income and he is unable to pay the compensation as per requirement in the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Babalal H. 2010(2) RCR (Crl.) 851. condition of deposit of 15% of the compensation amount keeping in view the poor financial condition of the petitioner. 4. the contentions raised by learned counsel for settlement and has submitted that complainant present petition is allowed and the orders under challenge are set aside/quashed. He also affirmed that the complainant paid by the petitioners. 5. the hatchet, no purpose would be served by punishing the petitioner, who has already honoured the terms of the compromise, which fact has learned counsel for respondent 1260-2025 (O&M) Hence, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing the present revision petition challenging the above said orders. Learned counsel for the petitioner parties have settled the dispute and entire amount has been paid by the petitioner to the complainant-respondent and now nothing is due against submits that in view of the settlement effected between the parties be allowed to compound the offence and they Section 138 of the Act and the orders under challenge in the present revision petition be set aside. He has placed reliance on the law laid down by Hon'ble me Court in Raj Reddy Kallem vs. The State of Haryana and another, Law Finder Doc Id# 2557645, wherein, it has been held that there is no bar to seek the compounding of the offence at later stage of criminal proceedings including after conviction. He has further submitted that the petitioner no source of income and he is unable to pay the compensation as per requirement in the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2010(2) RCR (Crl.) 851. Thus, he prays for dis condition of deposit of 15% of the compensation amount keeping in view the poor financial condition of the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the the contentions raised by learned counsel for settlement and has submitted that complainant present petition is allowed and the orders under challenge are set aside/quashed. He also affirmed that the complainant-respondent is satis paid by the petitioners. Heard. As the parties have compromised the matter and have buried the hatchet, no purpose would be served by punishing the petitioner, who has already honoured the terms of the compromise, which fact has learned counsel for respondent-complainant. In - 3 - approached this Court by way of filing the present revision petition challenging the above said orders. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that now the parties have settled the dispute and entire amount has been paid by the petitioner respondent and now nothing is due against them. He further submits that in view of the settlement effected between the parties, the petitioner they be acquitted of the charges under Section 138 of the Act and the orders under challenge in the present revision petition be set aside. He has placed reliance on the law laid down by Hon'ble Raj Reddy Kallem vs. The State of Haryana and another, Law Finder Doc Id# 2557645, wherein, it has been held that there is no bar to seek the compounding of the offence at later stage of criminal proceedings urther submitted that the petitioner is having no source of income and he is unable to pay the compensation as per requirement in the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayad Thus, he prays for dispensing with the condition of deposit of 15% of the compensation amount keeping in view the poor appearing on behalf of the respondent has affirmed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the settlement and has submitted that complainant-respondent has no objection, if the present petition is allowed and the orders under challenge are set aside/quashed. respondent is satisfied with the amount As the parties have compromised the matter and have buried the hatchet, no purpose would be served by punishing the petitioner, who has already honoured the terms of the compromise, which fact has been affirmed by complainant. In Raj Reddy Kallem’s case approached this Court by way of filing the present has submitted that now the parties have settled the dispute and entire amount has been paid by the petitioner . He further , the petitioner be acquitted of the charges under Section 138 of the Act and the orders under challenge in the present revision petition be set aside. He has placed reliance on the law laid down by Hon'ble Raj Reddy Kallem vs. The State of Haryana and another, Law Finder Doc Id# 2557645, wherein, it has been held that there is no bar to seek the compounding of the offence at later stage of criminal proceedings having no source of income and he is unable to pay the compensation as per requirement Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayad pensing with the condition of deposit of 15% of the compensation amount keeping in view the poor respondent has affirmed the petitioner with regard to the respondent has no objection, if the present petition is allowed and the orders under challenge are set aside/quashed. fied with the amount As the parties have compromised the matter and have buried the hatchet, no purpose would be served by punishing the petitioner, who has been affirmed by case VINOD KUMAR 2025.05.15 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1260 (supra), it has been held that the accused must try for compounding of the offence at the initial stages instead of later stages, however, there is no bar to seek the compounding of offence at later stage of criminal proceedings including after conviction. 6. Supreme Court, the petitioner ordered to be acquit the order dated dated 11.02.2022 petitioner under Section 138 of the NI Act, 7. for the petitioner deems it appropriate to dispense with the condition of deposit of 15% of the cheque amount as compensation by the petitioner compound the offence. 8. applications are also disposed of. May 14, 2025 vinod* 1260-2025 (O&M) (supra), it has been held that the accused must try for compounding of the offence at the initial stages instead of later stages, however, there is no bar to seek the ompounding of offence at later stage of criminal proceedings including after So keeping in view above facts and the law settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioners are allowed to compound the offence and ordered to be acquitted of the charges framed against the order dated 02.03.2023 passed by learned Sessions Judge, 11.02.2022 passed by JMIC, Bathinda petitioner under Section 138 of the NI Act, are set aside. Taking into consideration the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners regarding poor financial condition of petitioner deems it appropriate to dispense with the condition of deposit of 15% of the e amount as compensation by the petitioner compound the offence. Revision petition is allowed in above terms and the pending applications are also disposed of. May 14, 2025 Whether Speaking/Reasoned: Whether Reportable: - 4 - (supra), it has been held that the accused must try for compounding of the offence at the initial stages instead of later stages, however, there is no bar to seek the ompounding of offence at later stage of criminal proceedings including after So keeping in view above facts and the law settled by Hon’ble allowed to compound the offence and they are ted of the charges framed against them. As a consequences, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda, and order Bathinda, convicting and sentencing the are set aside. Taking into consideration the contention raised by learned counsel regarding poor financial condition of petitioner no.2, this Court deems it appropriate to dispense with the condition of deposit of 15% of the e amount as compensation by the petitioners and they are allowed to Revision petition is allowed in above terms and the pending (Rajesh Bhardwaj) Judge Whether Speaking/Reasoned: NO/YES NO/YES (supra), it has been held that the accused must try for compounding of the offence at the initial stages instead of later stages, however, there is no bar to seek the ompounding of offence at later stage of criminal proceedings including after So keeping in view above facts and the law settled by Hon’ble they are . As a consequences, , and order , convicting and sentencing the Taking into consideration the contention raised by learned counsel , this Court deems it appropriate to dispense with the condition of deposit of 15% of the allowed to Revision petition is allowed in above terms and the pending VINOD KUMAR 2025.05.15 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document