CRR No.1542 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 213 RAHISH KHAN Vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANOTHER CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. for the petitioner. Mr. Puneet Kakkar, Advocate for respondent No.1/Bank. Mr. Amit Aggarwal, D.A.G., Haryana. HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) 1. The present revision petition has been dated 10.02.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat whereby, the appeal preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.03.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat, vide petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of six months of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1881'), is dismissed. 2. During the pendency of present criminal revision petition, an application bearing CRM No.2 under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 359 of the said Act been effected between the petitioner and respondent 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.1542 of 2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: RAHISH KHAN @ RAHIS KHAN PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANOTHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Mr. Vikas Bishnoi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Puneet Kakkar, Advocate for respondent No.1/Bank. Mr. Amit Aggarwal, D.A.G., Haryana. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been .2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat whereby, the appeal preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat, vide petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo a simple imprisonment for a six months along with fine for commission of offence under Section 138 Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1881'), is During the pendency of present criminal revision petition, an application bearing CRM No.24219-2025 has been filed by the applicant/petitioner under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Section of the said Act for compounding of the offences, as compromise has already effected between the petitioner and respondent IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.1542 of 2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.06.2025 ......Petitioner PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANOTHER ....Respondents HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Amit Aggarwal, D.A.G., Haryana. Amit Aggarwal, D.A.G., Haryana. The present revision petition has been preferred against judgment .2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat whereby, the appeal preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat, vide which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo a simple imprisonment for a for commission of offence under Section 138 Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1881'), is During the pendency of present criminal revision petition, an 2025 has been filed by the applicant/petitioner under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Section compounding of the offences, as compromise has already effected between the petitioner and respondent-Bank. In fact, respondent 1 preferred against judgment .2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat whereby, the appeal preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo a simple imprisonment for a for commission of offence under Section 138 Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1881'), is During the pendency of present criminal revision petition, an 2025 has been filed by the applicant/petitioner under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Section compounding of the offences, as compromise has already Bank. In fact, respondent- MOHMED ATIK 2025.06.25 14:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR No.1542 of 2025 Bank has also issued a NDC dated 03.08.2023 (Annexure P present application. The factum of compromise for respondent No.1. 3. The petitioner(s) stands convicted under Sections 138 of Act of 1881 vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, of six months for commission of offence under Section 138 of Act of 1881 along with fine to the tune of Rs. period of two months. The appeal preferred against the afore conviction and order of sentence has been dismissed vide judgment dated 10.02.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat 4. During the pendency of present revision petition, been effected between the petitioner and respondent NDC dated 03.08.2023 (Annexure P documents reveal that the settlement has not been secured through coercion, threats, social boycotts, bribes, or other dubious means. The respondent willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings. There is no objection from the respondent 5. In the given facts, the tranquility, moral turpitude or harm the social and moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning public policy. The rejection of compromise may also lead to ill will. The pendency of trial affects on the record to prima facie consider the accused as an unscrupulous, incorrigible, and professional offender. The purpose of criminal jurisprudence is reformatory in nature and to work to bring peace to family, and s 2025 (O&M) also issued a NDC dated 03.08.2023 (Annexure P application. The factum of compromise respondent No.1. The petitioner(s) stands convicted under Sections 138 of Act of 1881 vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat, he was sent for commission of offence under Section 138 of Act of 1881 along fine to the tune of Rs.1.10 lakhs; in default thereof, to further undergo SI for a months. The appeal preferred against the afore conviction and order of sentence has been dismissed vide judgment dated passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat During the pendency of present revision petition, been effected between the petitioner and respondent NDC dated 03.08.2023 (Annexure P-1) to the petitioner. A perusal of the documents reveal that the settlement has not been secured through coercion, ial boycotts, bribes, or other dubious means. The respondent consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings. There is no the respondent-Bank in case present revision petition is allowed. In the given facts, the occurrence does not affect public peace or , moral turpitude or harm the social and moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning public policy. The rejection of compromise may also lead to ill will. The pendency of trial affects career and happiness. There is nothing on the record to prima facie consider the accused as an unscrupulous, incorrigible, and professional offender. The purpose of criminal jurisprudence is reformatory in nature and to work to bring peace to family, and s also issued a NDC dated 03.08.2023 (Annexure P-1), attached with the application. The factum of compromise has been admitted by the counsel The petitioner(s) stands convicted under Sections 138 of Act of 1881 vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.03.2018 passed by , he was sentenced to undergo SI for a period for commission of offence under Section 138 of Act of 1881 along ; in default thereof, to further undergo SI for a months. The appeal preferred against the afore-said judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been dismissed vide judgment dated passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat. During the pendency of present revision petition, a compromise has been effected between the petitioner and respondent-Bank, who has also issued 1) to the petitioner. A perusal of the documents reveal that the settlement has not been secured through coercion, ial boycotts, bribes, or other dubious means. The respondent-Bank has consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings. There is no Bank in case present revision petition is allowed. occurrence does not affect public peace or , moral turpitude or harm the social and moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning public policy. The rejection of compromise may also career and happiness. There is nothing on the record to prima facie consider the accused as an unscrupulous, incorrigible, and professional offender. The purpose of criminal jurisprudence is reformatory in nature and to work to bring peace to family, and society. The exercise of the 2 1), attached with the has been admitted by the counsel The petitioner(s) stands convicted under Sections 138 of Act of 1881 .2018 passed by enced to undergo SI for a period for commission of offence under Section 138 of Act of 1881 along- ; in default thereof, to further undergo SI for a said judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been dismissed vide judgment dated a compromise has Bank, who has also issued 1) to the petitioner. A perusal of the documents reveal that the settlement has not been secured through coercion, Bank has consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings. There is no occurrence does not affect public peace or , moral turpitude or harm the social and moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning public policy. The rejection of compromise may also career and happiness. There is nothing on the record to prima facie consider the accused as an unscrupulous, incorrigible, and professional offender. The purpose of criminal jurisprudence is reformatory in ociety. The exercise of the MOHMED ATIK 2025.06.25 14:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR No.1542 of 2025 inherent power for quashing the conviction, sentence and all previous proceedings are justified to secure the ends of justice. 6. At the very initial stage of hearing, a question was raised on behalf of the petitioner as to whe be compounded under Section 147 of the said Act read with Section 320 Cr.P.C (now Section 359 BNSS). 7. Since a specific power had been given to the parties to a proceeding under the Negotiable there could be no reason as to why the same cannot be permitted even after conviction, which had been affirmed upto the High Court. 8. Moreover, in order to facilitate settlement of disputes, the thought it fit to insert Section 147 by Amending Act 55 of 2002. Such amendment came into effect from 6th February, 2003, and provided that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now BNSS, 2023) every offence punishable under the Act would be compoundable. In view of the non-obstante clause, the provisions of Section 147 were given an overriding effect over the Code and in view of the clear mandate given to the parties to compound an offence under the Act, re BNSS). can be made for purposes of comparison only in order to understand the scope of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 9. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of Apex Court rendered in the case of “O.P. Dholakia vs. State of Haryana & Anr.” [(2000) 1 SCC 762] wherein it was held that since the petitioner had already entered into a compromise with the complainant and the complainant had appeared through counsel and stated that the entire mon 2025 (O&M) inherent power for quashing the conviction, sentence and all previous proceedings are justified to secure the ends of justice. At the very initial stage of hearing, a question was raised on behalf of the petitioner as to whether an offence under Section 138 of the Act of 1881, could be compounded under Section 147 of the said Act read with Section 320 Cr.P.C (now Section 359 BNSS). Since a specific power had been given to the parties to a proceeding under the Negotiable Instruments Act under Section 147 to compound the offence, there could be no reason as to why the same cannot be permitted even after conviction, which had been affirmed upto the High Court. Moreover, in order to facilitate settlement of disputes, the thought it fit to insert Section 147 by Amending Act 55 of 2002. Such amendment came into effect from 6th February, 2003, and provided that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now BNSS, 2023) e punishable under the Act would be compoundable. In view of the obstante clause, the provisions of Section 147 were given an overriding effect over the Code and in view of the clear mandate given to the parties to compound offence under the Act, reference to Section 320 Cr.P.C (now Section 359 can be made for purposes of comparison only in order to understand the Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of Apex Court rendered in O.P. Dholakia vs. State of Haryana & Anr.” [(2000) 1 SCC 762] wherein it was held that since the petitioner had already entered into a compromise with the complainant and the complainant had appeared through counsel and stated that the entire money had been received by him and he had no objection if the inherent power for quashing the conviction, sentence and all previous proceedings At the very initial stage of hearing, a question was raised on behalf of ther an offence under Section 138 of the Act of 1881, could be compounded under Section 147 of the said Act read with Section 320 Cr.P.C Since a specific power had been given to the parties to a proceeding Instruments Act under Section 147 to compound the offence, there could be no reason as to why the same cannot be permitted even after conviction, which had been affirmed upto the High Court. Moreover, in order to facilitate settlement of disputes, the legislature thought it fit to insert Section 147 by Amending Act 55 of 2002. Such amendment came into effect from 6th February, 2003, and provided that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now BNSS, 2023) e punishable under the Act would be compoundable. In view of the obstante clause, the provisions of Section 147 were given an overriding effect over the Code and in view of the clear mandate given to the parties to compound ference to Section 320 Cr.P.C (now Section 359 can be made for purposes of comparison only in order to understand the Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of Apex Court rendered in O.P. Dholakia vs. State of Haryana & Anr.” [(2000) 1 SCC 762] wherein it was held that since the petitioner had already entered into a compromise with the complainant and the complainant had appeared through counsel and stated ey had been received by him and he had no objection if the 3 inherent power for quashing the conviction, sentence and all previous proceedings At the very initial stage of hearing, a question was raised on behalf of ther an offence under Section 138 of the Act of 1881, could be compounded under Section 147 of the said Act read with Section 320 Cr.P.C Since a specific power had been given to the parties to a proceeding Instruments Act under Section 147 to compound the offence, there could be no reason as to why the same cannot be permitted even after legislature thought it fit to insert Section 147 by Amending Act 55 of 2002. Such amendment came into effect from 6th February, 2003, and provided that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now BNSS, 2023) e punishable under the Act would be compoundable. In view of the obstante clause, the provisions of Section 147 were given an overriding effect over the Code and in view of the clear mandate given to the parties to compound ference to Section 320 Cr.P.C (now Section 359 can be made for purposes of comparison only in order to understand the Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of Apex Court rendered in O.P. Dholakia vs. State of Haryana & Anr.” [(2000) 1 SCC 762], wherein it was held that since the petitioner had already entered into a compromise with the complainant and the complainant had appeared through counsel and stated ey had been received by him and he had no objection if the MOHMED ATIK 2025.06.25 14:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR No.1542 of 2025 conviction already recorded under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is set aside, the Hon’ble Judges thought it appropriate to grant permission, in the peculiar facts and circumstances doing so, this Court also indicated that necessarily the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Act stood annulled. 10. The said view has been consistently followed in the following cases; (1) Anil Kumar Haritwal & Anr. vs. Alka Gupta & Anr. [(2004) 4 SCC 366]; B.C. Seshadri vs. B.N. Suryanarayana Rao [2004 (11) SCC 510] three Judge Bench; (3) Anr. [(2004 11 SCC 400]; SCC 494]; (5) Sailesh Shyam Parsekar vs. Baban [(2005 (4) SCC 162] Gyansagar vs. Ganesh Gupta & Anr. [(2005) 7 SCC 54]; Reddy vs. Annapurna Seeds & Anr. [(2005) 10 SCC 632] Menon vs. Ansari Naseer Ahmed [(2005) 12 SCC 140] Nayak vs. Ryot Sewa Sahakari Bank Ltd. [(2008) 2 SCC 305], the earlier decisions have been noticed; and (10) M.K. Kunhiraman & Anr. [2 Bench of the Kerala High Court, wherein also the issue has been gone into in great detail. 11. The golden thread in all these decisions is that once a person is allowed to compound a case as provided fo Instruments Act, the conviction under Section 138 of the said Act should also be set aside. In the case of Vinay Devanna Nayak (supra), the issue was raised and after taking note of the provisions of Section 320 BNSS), it was held that since the matter had been compromised between the 2025 (O&M) conviction already recorded under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act set aside, the Hon’ble Judges thought it appropriate to grant permission, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, to compound the offence. While so, this Court also indicated that necessarily the conviction and sentence Section 138 of the Act stood annulled. The said view has been consistently followed in the following cases; ar Haritwal & Anr. vs. Alka Gupta & Anr. [(2004) 4 SCC 366]; B.C. Seshadri vs. B.N. Suryanarayana Rao [2004 (11) SCC 510] three Judge Bench; (3) G. Sivarajan vs. Little Flower Kuries & Enterprises Ltd. & Anr. [(2004 11 SCC 400]; (4) Kishore Kumar vs. J.K. Corporation Ltd. [(2004 13 Sailesh Shyam Parsekar vs. Baban [(2005 (4) SCC 162] Gyansagar vs. Ganesh Gupta & Anr. [(2005) 7 SCC 54]; Reddy vs. Annapurna Seeds & Anr. [(2005) 10 SCC 632] Menon vs. Ansari Naseer Ahmed [(2005) 12 SCC 140] Nayak vs. Ryot Sewa Sahakari Bank Ltd. [(2008) 2 SCC 305], decisions have been noticed; and (10) M.K. Kunhiraman & Anr. [2008 (1) KLJ 203], which was a decision of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, wherein also the issue has been gone into in great The golden thread in all these decisions is that once a person is to compound a case as provided for under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the conviction under Section 138 of the said Act should also be aside. In the case of Vinay Devanna Nayak (supra), the issue was raised and taking note of the provisions of Section 320 was held that since the matter had been compromised between the conviction already recorded under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act set aside, the Hon’ble Judges thought it appropriate to grant permission, in the of the case, to compound the offence. While so, this Court also indicated that necessarily the conviction and sentence The said view has been consistently followed in the following cases; ar Haritwal & Anr. vs. Alka Gupta & Anr. [(2004) 4 SCC 366]; B.C. Seshadri vs. B.N. Suryanarayana Rao [2004 (11) SCC 510] decided by a G. Sivarajan vs. Little Flower Kuries & Enterprises Ltd. & e Kumar vs. J.K. Corporation Ltd. [(2004 13 Sailesh Shyam Parsekar vs. Baban [(2005 (4) SCC 162]; (6) Gyansagar vs. Ganesh Gupta & Anr. [(2005) 7 SCC 54]; (7) K.J.B.L. Rama Reddy vs. Annapurna Seeds & Anr. [(2005) 10 SCC 632]; (8) Sayeed Ishaque Menon vs. Ansari Naseer Ahmed [(2005) 12 SCC 140]; (9) Vinay Devanna Nayak vs. Ryot Sewa Sahakari Bank Ltd. [(2008) 2 SCC 305], wherein some of decisions have been noticed; and (10) Sudheer Kumar vs. Manakkandi , which was a decision of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, wherein also the issue has been gone into in great The golden thread in all these decisions is that once a person is r under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the conviction under Section 138 of the said Act should also be aside. In the case of Vinay Devanna Nayak (supra), the issue was raised and taking note of the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. (now Section 359 was held that since the matter had been compromised between the 4 conviction already recorded under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act set aside, the Hon’ble Judges thought it appropriate to grant permission, in the of the case, to compound the offence. While so, this Court also indicated that necessarily the conviction and sentence The said view has been consistently followed in the following cases; (2) decided by a G. Sivarajan vs. Little Flower Kuries & Enterprises Ltd. & e Kumar vs. J.K. Corporation Ltd. [(2004 13 ; (6) K. K.J.B.L. Rama Ishaque Vinay Devanna wherein some of Sudheer Kumar vs. Manakkandi , which was a decision of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, wherein also the issue has been gone into in great The golden thread in all these decisions is that once a person is r under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the conviction under Section 138 of the said Act should also be aside. In the case of Vinay Devanna Nayak (supra), the issue was raised and Cr.P.C. (now Section 359 was held that since the matter had been compromised between the MOHMED ATIK 2025.06.25 14:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR No.1542 of 2025 parties and payments had been made in full and final settlement of the dues of the Bank, the appeal deserved to be allowed and the appellant was entitled to Consequently, the order of conviction and sentence recorded by all the courts were set aside and the appellant was acquitted of the charge leveled against him. 12. The object of Section 320 Cr.P.C. (now Section 359 BNSS), which would not in the 1881, gives the parties to the proceedings an opportunity to compound offences mentioned in the table contained in the said section, with or without the leave of the court, and also vests the virtue of Sub-Section (8), the Legislature has taken one step further in vesting jurisdiction in the Court to also acquit the accused/convict of the offence on the same being allowed to be compounded. I mind that Section 147 has been inserted into the Act of, 1881, by amendment, an analogy may be drawn as to the intention of the Legislature as expressed in Section 320(8) Cr.P.C. (now Section 359 (8) BNSS), alth expressly mentioned in the amended section to a proceeding under Section 147 of the aforesaid Act. 13. Apart from the above, this Court is further empowered under Article 142 of the Constitution to pass appropriate orders in li Section 320 Cr.P.C (now Section 359 BNSS). in an application under Section 147 of the aforesaid Act, in order to do justice to the parties. 14. As far as the non 1881 is concerned, the Act of 1881 being a special statute, the provisions of Section 147 will have an overriding effect over the provisions of the Code relating to compounding of offences. 2025 (O&M) payments had been made in full and final settlement of the dues of the appeal deserved to be allowed and the appellant was entitled to Consequently, the order of conviction and sentence recorded by all the courts were set aside and the appellant was acquitted of the charge leveled against him. The object of Section 320 Cr.P.C. (now Section 359 BNSS), which would not in the strict sense of the term apply to a proceeding under the Act of 1881, gives the parties to the proceedings an opportunity to compound offences mentioned in the table contained in the said section, with or without the leave of court, and also vests the court with jurisdiction to allow such compromise. By Section (8), the Legislature has taken one step further in vesting in the Court to also acquit the accused/convict of the offence on the allowed to be compounded. In as much as, it is with a similar object in Section 147 has been inserted into the Act of, 1881, by amendment, an be drawn as to the intention of the Legislature as expressed in Section Cr.P.C. (now Section 359 (8) BNSS), alth mentioned in the amended section to a proceeding under Section 147 of aforesaid Act. Apart from the above, this Court is further empowered under Article 142 of the Constitution to pass appropriate orders in li Section 320 Cr.P.C (now Section 359 BNSS). in an application under Section 147 the aforesaid Act, in order to do justice to the parties. As far as the non-obstante clause included in Section 147 of the Act of erned, the Act of 1881 being a special statute, the provisions of 147 will have an overriding effect over the provisions of the Code relating compounding of offences. payments had been made in full and final settlement of the dues of the appeal deserved to be allowed and the appellant was entitled to acquittal. Consequently, the order of conviction and sentence recorded by all the courts were set aside and the appellant was acquitted of the charge leveled against him. The object of Section 320 Cr.P.C. (now Section 359 BNSS), which strict sense of the term apply to a proceeding under the Act of 1881, gives the parties to the proceedings an opportunity to compound offences mentioned in the table contained in the said section, with or without the leave of court with jurisdiction to allow such compromise. By Section (8), the Legislature has taken one step further in vesting in the Court to also acquit the accused/convict of the offence on the much as, it is with a similar object in Section 147 has been inserted into the Act of, 1881, by amendment, an be drawn as to the intention of the Legislature as expressed in Section Cr.P.C. (now Section 359 (8) BNSS), although, the same has not been mentioned in the amended section to a proceeding under Section 147 of Apart from the above, this Court is further empowered under Article 142 of the Constitution to pass appropriate orders in line with Sub-Section (8) of Section 320 Cr.P.C (now Section 359 BNSS). in an application under Section 147 the aforesaid Act, in order to do justice to the parties. obstante clause included in Section 147 of the Act of erned, the Act of 1881 being a special statute, the provisions of 147 will have an overriding effect over the provisions of the Code relating 5 payments had been made in full and final settlement of the dues of the acquittal. Consequently, the order of conviction and sentence recorded by all the courts were The object of Section 320 Cr.P.C. (now Section 359 BNSS), which strict sense of the term apply to a proceeding under the Act of 1881, gives the parties to the proceedings an opportunity to compound offences mentioned in the table contained in the said section, with or without the leave of court with jurisdiction to allow such compromise. By Section (8), the Legislature has taken one step further in vesting in the Court to also acquit the accused/convict of the offence on the much as, it is with a similar object in Section 147 has been inserted into the Act of, 1881, by amendment, an be drawn as to the intention of the Legislature as expressed in Section ough, the same has not been mentioned in the amended section to a proceeding under Section 147 of Apart from the above, this Court is further empowered under Article Section (8) of Section 320 Cr.P.C (now Section 359 BNSS). in an application under Section 147 obstante clause included in Section 147 of the Act of erned, the Act of 1881 being a special statute, the provisions of 147 will have an overriding effect over the provisions of the Code relating MOHMED ATIK 2025.06.25 14:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR No.1542 of 2025 15. It is true that the application under Section 528 of BN with Section 147 of the Act of 1881 has been made by the parties after the proceedings had been concluded before the Appellate Court. However, Section 147 of the aforesaid Act does not bar the parties from compounding an offence under Section 138 even at the 16. Accordingly, I find no reason to reject the application under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 read with Section 17. Since the parties have settled their disputes, in keeping with of 528 of BNSS, 2023 read with Section parties to compound the acquit the petitioner of the 18. The instant revision petition, 2025 seeking compounding of offences are, accordingly, allowed in the aforesaid terms. 19. The applicant/petitioner is directed to be release in case he is not required in any other case. 20. Pending criminal misc. application(s), if any, shall also disposed of. June 25, 2025 Atik Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2025 (O&M) It is true that the application under Section 528 of BN Section 147 of the Act of 1881 has been made by the parties after the proceedings had been concluded before the Appellate Court. 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, I find no reason to reject the application under Section S, 2023 read with Section 359 of the Act and the same is Since the parties have settled their disputes, in keeping with S, 2023 read with Section 359 parties to compound the offence, set aside the judgment acquit the petitioner of the charges against him. The instant revision petition, as well as application i.e. CRM 2025 seeking compounding of offences are, accordingly, allowed in the aforesaid The applicant/petitioner is directed to be release case he is not required in any other case. Pending criminal misc. application(s), if any, shall also disposed of. (HARKESH MANUJA) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No It is true that the application under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 read Section 147 of the Act of 1881 has been made by the parties after the proceedings had been concluded before the Appellate Court. However, Section 147 of the aforesaid Act does not bar the parties from compounding an offence under appellate stage of the proceedings. Accordingly, I find no reason to reject the application under Section of the Act and the same is allowed. Since the parties have settled their disputes, in keeping with the spirit 359 of the Act, this Court allows the offence, set aside the judgments of the courts below and as well as application i.e. CRM-24219 2025 seeking compounding of offences are, accordingly, allowed in the aforesaid The applicant/petitioner is directed to be released from jail forthwith, Pending criminal misc. application(s), if any, shall also disposed of. (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No 6 S, 2023 read Section 147 of the Act of 1881 has been made by the parties after the proceedings had been concluded before the Appellate Court. However, Section 147 of the aforesaid Act does not bar the parties from compounding an offence under Accordingly, I find no reason to reject the application under Section the spirit , this Court allows the of the courts below and 4219- 2025 seeking compounding of offences are, accordingly, allowed in the aforesaid from jail forthwith, Pending criminal misc. application(s), if any, shall also disposed of. MOHMED ATIK 2025.06.25 14:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment