CRR No.1681 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Sukhwinder Singh Versus M/s Savi Finance Co. and another CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present: Mr. Ms. Manveer Kaur for the petitioner Mr. Mr. H. S. Sandhu, Advocate, For th LAPITA BANERJI, J. CRM NO.26343 OF 2025 This is an application days in preferring For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed and delay of 112 days in preferring the CRM NO.26342 OF 2025 This is an of the fact that the parties have amicably settled their dispute. Since the prayer made in this application has direct bearing on the main revision main case, which is also listed today, be taken up. RR No.1681 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR NO.1681 OF 2025 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: Sukhwinder Singh Versus Finance Co. and another HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. J. S. Bhandohal, Advocate and Ms. Manveer Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sukhmeet Singh, Advocate for Mr. H. S. Sandhu, Advocate, For the respondents. LAPITA BANERJI, J. CRM NO.26343 OF 2025 This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 112 preferring the petition. For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed and delay of 112 days in preferring the petition is condoned. 26342 OF 2025 This is an application for compounding the offence in view of the fact that the parties have amicably settled their dispute. Since the prayer made in this application has direct bearing on the main revision petition, the application is disposed of and let the main case, which is also listed today, be taken up. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CRR NO.1681 OF 2025 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: JULY 14, 2025 ….Petitioner ….Respondents HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI and Sukhmeet Singh, Advocate for seeking condonation of delay of 112 For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed petition is condoned. application for compounding the offence in view of the fact that the parties have amicably settled their dispute. Since the prayer made in this application has direct bearing petition, the application is disposed of and let the main case, which is also listed today, be taken up. SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.18 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No.1681 of 2025 CRR NO.1681 OF 2025 The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment of conviction dated September 22, 2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, No.NACT-25- and another v. Sukhwinder Singh Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “N.I.Act”) petitioner was held guilty of N.I. Act. The petitioner has also challenged 21, 2024 passed CRA No.186 of 2017 2. Brief facts of the case are narrated hereinafter: i) The accused Rs.5,00,000/- towards the complainants, he issued cheque bearin 11.11.2013 drawn on Capital Local Area Bank, Phagwara, in favour of the complainants and assured that the cheque would be honoured as and when presented for encashment. proprietorship firm of the complainant ii) The complainants presented the cheque immediately but the same was dishonoured vide memo dated 12.11.2013 “Funds Insufficient notice dated November 14, 20 the petitioner to make payment of Since the petitioner did not make any payment within the stipulated time, RR No.1681 of 2025 CRR NO.1681 OF 2025 The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment of conviction dated September 22, 2017 passed by learned ial Magistrate 1st Class, Phagwara in -2014 dated December 24, 2013 “ and another v. Sukhwinder Singh” filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “N.I.Act”) titioner was held guilty for commission of offence The petitioner has also challenged 21, 2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge 186 of 2017, whereby appeal of the p Brief facts of the case are narrated hereinafter: The accused-petitioner took loan of an amount of from the complainants. In discharge of his legal liability towards the complainants, he issued cheque bearin 11.11.2013 drawn on Capital Local Area Bank, Phagwara, in favour of the complainants and assured that the cheque would be honoured as and when presented for encashment. The complainant No.1 is a sole proprietorship firm of the complainant No.2. The complainants presented the cheque immediately but the same was dishonoured vide memo dated 12.11.2013 Funds Insufficient”. The complainants being aggrieved, served a legal November 14, 2013 through registered the petitioner to make payment of the stipulated amount Since the petitioner did not make any payment within the stipulated time, The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment of conviction dated September 22, 2017 passed by learned Phagwara in complaint bearing CIS 2014 dated December 24, 2013 “M/s Savi Finance Co. ” filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “N.I.Act”), wherein the for commission of offence under Section 138 The petitioner has also challenged judgment dated December by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kapurthala, in whereby appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. Brief facts of the case are narrated hereinafter: petitioner took loan of an amount of from the complainants. In discharge of his legal liability towards the complainants, he issued cheque bearing No.385935 dated 11.11.2013 drawn on Capital Local Area Bank, Phagwara, in favour of the complainants and assured that the cheque would be honoured as and The complainant No.1 is a sole The complainants presented the cheque immediately but the same was dishonoured vide memo dated 12.11.2013 with the remarks . The complainants being aggrieved, served a legal 3 through registered post and requested stipulated amount, within 15 days. Since the petitioner did not make any payment within the stipulated time, SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.18 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No.1681 of 2025 the complainants filed N.I. Act. 3. The petitioner was held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and was sentenced as under: Offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act 4. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, the accused learned Additional Sessions Judge dated December 21, 2024, the said appeal was dismissed. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment/order passed in appeal by the Court below petitioner. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of t submits that an amicable settlement has been arrived between the petitioner and the proprietor (complainant No.2) of complainant No.1 finance Company. It is recorded in the said compromise entered on July 02, 2025 (Annexure P Rs.3,10,000/- July 02, 2025. 7. Learned counsel further contends that since nothing remained due and payable towards the complaint in view of Section 147 of the N.I. Act, the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act should be compounded. RR No.1681 of 2025 the complainants filed the aforesaid complaint under Section 138 of the The petitioner was held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and was sentenced as under: Offence Section Sentence Fine/ Compensation 138 of N.I.Act Rigorous imprisonment for six months Compensation u/s Cr.P.C of the cheque amount i.e Rs.5,00,000/ Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, the accused-petitioner preferred an appeal before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kapurthala. By an order/jud dated December 21, 2024, the said appeal was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the judgment/order passed in appeal by Court below, the present revision petition has been preferred by the Learned counsel appearing on behalf of t submits that an amicable settlement has been arrived between the petitioner and the proprietor (complainant No.2) of complainant No.1 finance Company. It is recorded in the said compromise entered on July 02, 2025 (Annexure P-1) that the petitioner had already paid a sum of in cash on May 18, 2021 and a sum of Rs.1,90,000/ July 02, 2025. Learned counsel further contends that since nothing remained due and payable towards the complaint in view of Section 147 Act, the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act should be the aforesaid complaint under Section 138 of the The petitioner was held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and was sentenced as under: Fine/ Compensation Compensation u/s 357(3) Cr.P.C of the cheque amount i.e Rs.5,00,000/- Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and the order of petitioner preferred an appeal before the Court of II, Kapurthala. By an order/judgment dated December 21, 2024, the said appeal was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the judgment/order passed in appeal by , the present revision petition has been preferred by the Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that an amicable settlement has been arrived between the petitioner and the proprietor (complainant No.2) of complainant No.1- finance Company. It is recorded in the said compromise entered on July tioner had already paid a sum of in cash on May 18, 2021 and a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- on Learned counsel further contends that since nothing remained due and payable towards the complaint in view of Section 147 Act, the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act should be SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.18 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No.1681 of 2025 8. Issue notice. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents present in Court, amount from the petitione parties. He submits that he has no objection if the offence is compounded in favour of the petitioner and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the le Appellate Court, are quashed and set 10. Section 147 of the N.I. Act makes all offences under th Act, compoundable offences. It is well settled proposition of law that in view of the provisions contained under this Section read with Sectio of BNSS (Section parties can be accepted and the offence committed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act can be ordered to be compounded even after conviction. Reference in this regard can be made to the 2022 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Misc. (main) Petition No.107 of 2022 under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C in “Hiranand Shastri v. Ram Rattan Thakur and another observed that the judgment of the N.I. Act can be recalled, in view of the specific provisions contained under Section 147 of the A offence allegedly committed under Section 138 of the N.I. proposition of law was laid down 2021 passed in and another” wherein it was observed by the High Court of Himachal RR No.1681 of 2025 Issue notice. Learned counsel for the respondents present in Court, has affirmed the factum of receipt of the entire disputed amount from the petitioner and the factum of compromise between the parties. He submits that he has no objection if the offence is compounded of the petitioner and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the le Appellate Court, are quashed and set-aside. Section 147 of the N.I. Act makes all offences under th compoundable offences. It is well settled proposition of law that in view of the provisions contained under this Section read with Sectio Section 320 of the Cr.P.C.), a compromise arrived parties can be accepted and the offence committed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act can be ordered to be compounded even after conviction. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment dated March 02, 2022 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Misc. (main) Petition No.107 of 2022 under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C in Hiranand Shastri v. Ram Rattan Thakur and another observed that the judgment of conviction recorded under Section 138 of Act can be recalled, in view of the specific provisions contained under Section 147 of the Act, which provide offence allegedly committed under Section 138 of the N.I. osition of law was laid down in the judgment dated December 21, 2021 passed in CRM-M-2499 of 2021 “Geeta Devi v. Surinder Singh ” wherein it was observed by the High Court of Himachal Learned counsel for the respondents-complainants, who is has affirmed the factum of receipt of the entire disputed r and the factum of compromise between the parties. He submits that he has no objection if the offence is compounded of the petitioner and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the learned Section 147 of the N.I. Act makes all offences under the compoundable offences. It is well settled proposition of law that in view of the provisions contained under this Section read with Section 359 a compromise arrived inter se parties can be accepted and the offence committed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act can be ordered to be compounded even after conviction. judgment dated March 02, 2022 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Misc. (main) Petition No.107 of 2022 under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C in Hiranand Shastri v. Ram Rattan Thakur and another” wherein it was conviction recorded under Section 138 of Act can be recalled, in view of the specific provisions contained ct, which provides for compounding of offence allegedly committed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Similar in the judgment dated December 21, Geeta Devi v. Surinder Singh ” wherein it was observed by the High Court of Himachal SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.18 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No.1681 of 2025 Pradesh that the Court has ample powers under Section 147 of Act to compound the offence in those cases where the accused already stands convicted. Reference can also be made to judgment passed in “Sube Singh and another v. State of Haryana and another RCR (Criminal) 102 that even after the conviction, if the parties have settled the dispute amicably and have decided to live in peace and harmony, this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, can compound offence. 11. In “ RCR (Criminal) 851 guidelines with regard to the proceedings conducted in connection with complaints filed under Section 138 of the N. the interest of the complainant lied primarily in recovering the money rather than seeing the drawer of the cheque in jail with respect to the offence of dishonor of the cheque and it is compensatory remedy which Reddy Kallen v. State of Haryana and another was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court ‘compensatory aspect’ of remedy shall have priority over the aspect’, courts should encourage compounding of offences under the N.I. Act, if the parties are willing to do so. 12. In the instant case, as discussed above, the settled their dispute amicably, in pursuance of which the entire di amount has been paid by the petitioner to the respondent RR No.1681 of 2025 Pradesh that the Court has ample powers under Section 147 of Act to compound the offence in those cases where the accused already stands convicted. Reference can also be made to judgment passed in Sube Singh and another v. State of Haryana and another RCR (Criminal) 102, wherein a Division Bench of this Court has held that even after the conviction, if the parties have settled the dispute amicably and have decided to live in peace and harmony, this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, can compound In “Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Bab RCR (Criminal) 851, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had laid down several guidelines with regard to the proceedings conducted in connection with complaints filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It was observed that the interest of the complainant lied primarily in recovering the money rather than seeing the drawer of the cheque in jail with respect to the offence of dishonor of the cheque and it is compensatory remedy which should be given priority over the punitive aspect. In Reddy Kallen v. State of Haryana and another was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court ‘compensatory aspect’ of remedy shall have priority over the ourts should encourage compounding of offences under the N.I. if the parties are willing to do so. In the instant case, as discussed above, the settled their dispute amicably, in pursuance of which the entire di amount has been paid by the petitioner to the respondent Pradesh that the Court has ample powers under Section 147 of the N.I. Act to compound the offence in those cases where the accused already stands convicted. Reference can also be made to judgment passed in Sube Singh and another v. State of Haryana and another” 2013 (4) , wherein a Division Bench of this Court has held that even after the conviction, if the parties have settled the dispute amicably and have decided to live in peace and harmony, this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, can compound the Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H.” 2010 (2) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court had laid down several guidelines with regard to the proceedings conducted in connection with I. Act. It was observed that the interest of the complainant lied primarily in recovering the money rather than seeing the drawer of the cheque in jail with respect to the offence of dishonor of the cheque and it is compensatory aspect of the should be given priority over the punitive aspect. In “Raj Reddy Kallen v. State of Haryana and another”, (2024) 5 SCR 203, it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that keeping in mind that ‘compensatory aspect’ of remedy shall have priority over the ‘punitive ourts should encourage compounding of offences under the N.I. In the instant case, as discussed above, the parties have settled their dispute amicably, in pursuance of which the entire disputed amount has been paid by the petitioner to the respondents-complainants. SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.18 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No.1681 of 2025 This fact is affirmed by learned counsel for the respondents. He has stated that the complainants have no objection if the offence is compounded. This amicable settlement has ar after passing of the judgment by doubt that the petitioner and the respondents have reached at a settlement permissible by law. 13. In view of the above, since the parties have voluntar settled the dispute between themselves, it is a fit case for allowing them to compound the offence. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed, subject to payment of costs assessed at Rs.25,000/ PGI Poor Patient Welfare Fund. judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge dated December 21, 2024 and judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court dated September 22, 2017, are hereby set-aside. The o stands compounded and the petitioner is acquitted on account of such compounding. 14. Since the main petition is being applications, if any, have been rendered infructuous. 15. Let a necessary compliance and action. JULY 14, 2025 Shalini Whether Speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: RR No.1681 of 2025 This fact is affirmed by learned counsel for the respondents. He has stated that the complainants have no objection if the offence is compounded. This amicable settlement has ar after passing of the judgment by the learned Appellate Court. There is no doubt that the petitioner and the respondents have reached at a settlement permissible by law. In view of the above, since the parties have voluntar settled the dispute between themselves, it is a fit case for allowing them to compound the offence. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed, subject to payment of costs assessed at Rs.25,000/ PGI Poor Patient Welfare Fund. Subject to judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge December 21, 2024 and judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court dated September 22, 2017, are aside. The offence for which the petitioner was convicted stands compounded and the petitioner is acquitted on account of such compounding. Since the main petition is being applications, if any, have been rendered infructuous. Let a copy of the order be sent to the learned trial Court for necessary compliance and action. (LAPITA BANERJI) JULY 14, 2025 Whether Speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No This fact is affirmed by learned counsel for the respondents. He has stated that the complainants have no objection if the offence is compounded. This amicable settlement has arrived between the parties learned Appellate Court. There is no doubt that the petitioner and the respondents have reached at a settlement In view of the above, since the parties have voluntarily settled the dispute between themselves, it is a fit case for allowing them to compound the offence. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed, subject to payment of costs assessed at Rs.25,000/- to be deposited with ubject to payment of costs, the judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kapurthala December 21, 2024 and judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court dated September 22, 2017, are ffence for which the petitioner was convicted stands compounded and the petitioner is acquitted on account of such Since the main petition is being disposed of, pending applications, if any, have been rendered infructuous. copy of the order be sent to the learned trial Court for (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.18 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document