CRR-2440-2025(O&M) 1 245 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-2440-2025(O&M) Decided on :03.07.2025 Raja Singh .....PETITIONER VERSUS Dinesh Kumar .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH. Present: Ms. Saroj Malakar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Munish Kumar Garg, Advocate for the respondent. SANJAY VASHISTH, J (ORAL) 1. Present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 19.08.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, whereby appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated 21.10.2024 and order of sentence dated 24.10.2024 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tohana , convicting the petitioner for committing offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 01 years and to pay 50% of the cheque amount by way of compensation ( in addition to the amount of cheque in question) to complainant and in default of payment of compensation to undergo three months simple imprisonment, was dismissed. 2. During the pendency of the revision petition before this Court, the dispute between the parties was amicably resolved. RASHMI 2026.07.08 19:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2440-2025(O&M) 2 Accordingly, vide order dated 19.03.2026, parties were directed to appear before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tohana, for recording their respective statements with regard to the compromise. However, parties could not appear before the learned Court thereafter. Consequently, an application bearing CRM-22772-2026 was moved, seeking one more opportunity for recording their statements in respect of the compromise. In compliance with the order dated 26.05.2026, a report from the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tohana, has been received. The relevant portion of the report reads as under: “ In view of the statements of interested parties, this Court is satisfied that compromise has bee arrived between the parties and the said compromise is voluntary and without any pressure. All the interested parties have appeared in person and suffered their statements in the Court. The compromise is genuine, voluntary and out of free will of the parties. Only one accused namely Raja Singh has been arrayed as accused in the present FIR. No other criminal case is pending against the accused Raja Singh and he has not been declared proclaimed offender in the present FIR or other case. State of the interested parties in original are enclosed herewith.” 3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that respondent has no objection if application bearing CRM-11058-2026 is allowed and permission to compound the offence is granted. 4 Reliance is placed upon the Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, has observed as under:- RASHMI 2026.07.08 19:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2440-2025(O&M) 3 “(28) To conclude, it can safely be said that there can never be any hard and fast category which can be prescribed to enable the Court to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The only principle that can be laid down is the one which has been incorporated in the Section itself, i.e., "to prevent abuse of the process of any Court" or "to secure the ends of justice”. (29) In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others, Hon'ble Krishna Iyer, J. aptly summoned up the essence of compromise in the following words: “The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion.” (30) The power to do complete justice is the very essence of every judicial justice dispensation system. It cannot be diluted by distorted perceptions and is not a slave to anything, except to the caution and circumspection, the standards of which the Court sets before it, in exercise of such plenary and unfettered power inherently vested in it while donning the cloak of compassion to achieve the ends of justice. (31) No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) of the Cr.P.C., or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (32) The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is "finest hour of justice". Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of a litigation. RASHMI 2026.07.08 19:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2440-2025(O&M) 4 (33) The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C. which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice. (34) The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be exercised Ex-Debitia Justitia to prevent an abuse of process of Court. There can neither be an exhaustive list nor the defined para-meters to enable a High Court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The exercise of power has to be with circumspection and restraint. The Court is a vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever-lasting congeniality in society. Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery.” 5. In this regard, counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment(s) of: i) Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466; and Ramgopal and another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC Online SC 834; ii) a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sube Singh and another v. State of Haryana and another, 2013 (4) RCR (Criminal) 102; and RASHMI 2026.07.08 19:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2440-2025(O&M) 5 iii) a recent judgment passed by this Court in the case of Lakhbir Singh v. State of Punjab and another (CRA-S2065-SB-2007, decided on 14.02.2023 : Law Finder Doc ID #2138925). 6. Thus, on the basis of cited judgments counsel submits that in view of the compromise/settlement arrived at between the parties; by compounding the offence, proceedings can be quashed for the offence in question. 7. Since, the dispute has already been resolved, the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, is ordered to be compounded. Thus, CRM-11058-2026 in CRR-2440-2025, is allowed, and resultantly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Court(s) below, is ordered to be considered inoperative and of no consequence for all intents and purposes. 8. Present revision petition stand disposed of, with the aforesaid observations. 9. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) 03.07.2026 JUDGE Rashmi Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No RASHMI 2026.07.08 19:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document