CRM-11832-2026 in/and CRR-723-2026 132+282 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Baljyot Sidhu @ Baljoyt State of Punjab and Another CORAM : HON'BLE MS Present: Mr. MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. The petitioner has filed the instant the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, been convicted and sentenced year for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') and to pay compensation to the respondent No.2 to the tune of cheque amount i.e. Rs. 27.01.2026, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, appeal of the petitioner against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.08.2024 2. The brief fact the accused persons since accused Baljyot Singh is the friend of the complainant's son and he approached the 2026 in/and (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM CRR Date of Decision : Baljyot Sidhu @ Baljoyt Sidhu VERSUS and Another HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Aditya Anand, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) The petitioner has filed the instant the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, been convicted and sentenced to undergo simple for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') and to pay compensation to the respondent No.2 to the tune of cheque amount i.e. Rs.15,00,000/ , passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, appeal of the petitioner against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of 01.08.2024 has been dismissed. The brief facts of the case are that the accused persons since more than 10 years. It is the case of the complainant that accused Baljyot Singh is the friend of the complainant's son and he approached the -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-11832-2026 in/and CRR-723-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision : 24.03.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU , Advocate for the petitioner. The petitioner has filed the instant revision petition for setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.08.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, SAS Nagar whereby he has simple imprisonment for a period of 0 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') and to pay compensation to the respondent No.2 to 5,00,000/- as also the judgment dated , passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, vide which the appeal of the petitioner against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of s of the case are that the complainant’s son is known to more than 10 years. It is the case of the complainant that accused Baljyot Singh is the friend of the complainant's son and he approached the setting aside 01.08.2024, whereby he has imprisonment for a period of 01 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') and to pay compensation to the respondent No.2 to as also the judgment dated , vide which the appeal of the petitioner against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of the complainant’s son is known to more than 10 years. It is the case of the complainant that accused Baljyot Singh is the friend of the complainant's son and he approached the TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.25 19:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-11832-2026 in/and CRR-723-2026 complainant's son for a friendl complainant to give the accused a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/ the repayment of the loan amount which had accrued for a total of Rs. 9,34,000/ (Rs. 8 lacs as principle amount + Rs. the cheque bearing no.711529 dated 22.10.2020 of Rs.9,34,000/ dishonoured when presented with the banker. was given. Thereafter, complainant filed the pre NI Act. 3. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 0 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') and to compensation to the respondent No.2 to the tune of cheque amount i.e. Rs.15,00,000/- by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, SAS Nagar, vide order dated 01.08.2024. Feeling aggrieved, the present petitioner has filed the appeal, which was dismi order dated 27.01.2026. Hence the present revision petition has been filed. 4. The petitioner has also filed an application i.e. CRM under Section 147 of the Act permission from this Court to compound the offence and to acquit charges under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner averred that the present revision petition petitioner paid an amount of Rs. dispute. He further submits that the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable 2026 in/and (O&M) complainant's son for a friendly loan. The son of the complainant requested the complainant to give the accused a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/ the repayment of the loan amount which had accrued for a total of Rs. 9,34,000/ (Rs. 8 lacs as principle amount + Rs. 1,34,000/- the cheque bearing no.711529 dated 22.10.2020 of Rs.9,34,000/ dishonoured when presented with the banker. Legal notice was issued but no reply was given. Thereafter, complainant filed the pre The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 01 year for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') and to compensation to the respondent No.2 to the tune of cheque amount i.e. by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, SAS Nagar, vide order dated 01.08.2024. Feeling aggrieved, the present petitioner has filed the appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, vide order dated 27.01.2026. Hence the present revision petition has been filed. The petitioner has also filed an application i.e. CRM under Section 147 of the Act read with Section permission from this Court to compound the offence and to acquit charges under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner averred that ision petition, both the parties have petitioner paid an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as full and final settlement of the dispute. He further submits that the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable -2- y loan. The son of the complainant requested the complainant to give the accused a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- as friendly loan. In lieu of the repayment of the loan amount which had accrued for a total of Rs. 9,34,000/ - as interest) the accused had issued the cheque bearing no.711529 dated 22.10.2020 of Rs.9,34,000/- but the same was Legal notice was issued but no reply was given. Thereafter, complainant filed the present complaint under section 138 The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') and to pay compensation to the respondent No.2 to the tune of cheque amount i.e. by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, SAS Nagar, vide order dated 01.08.2024. Feeling aggrieved, the present petitioner has filed the appeal, ssed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, vide order dated 27.01.2026. Hence the present revision petition has been filed. The petitioner has also filed an application i.e. CRM-11832-2026 read with Section 528 of BNSS/482 Cr.P.C, seeking permission from this Court to compound the offence and to acquit him of the charges under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner averred that during the pendency of parties have compromised the matter and as full and final settlement of the dispute. He further submits that the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable y loan. The son of the complainant requested the In lieu of the repayment of the loan amount which had accrued for a total of Rs. 9,34,000/- as interest) the accused had issued but the same was Legal notice was issued but no reply sent complaint under section 138 simple for the offence punishable under Section 138 pay compensation to the respondent No.2 to the tune of cheque amount i.e. by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, SAS Nagar, vide order dated 01.08.2024. Feeling aggrieved, the present petitioner has filed the appeal, ssed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, vide 2026 , seeking of the during the pendency of compromised the matter and the as full and final settlement of the dispute. He further submits that the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.25 19:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-11832-2026 in/and CRR-723-2026 Instruments Act is essentia and once the dispute has been amicably settled and the complainant has received a substantial amount in full and final settlement, the very foundation of the complaint ceases to exist. Learned counsel aforesaid judgments passed by the Courts below be set aside and the petitioner be acquitted of the charge(s) levelled against her. 6. Notice of motion. 7. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent complaint case and he is not aware of any compromise effected between the parties. 8. Mr. and filed power of attorney record. He submits that the matter has been compromised, the amount stands paid and he has no objection, if the present application is allowed. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of ‘Tilak Kataria vs. State of Haryana and another’, 2021 (3) RCR (Criminal) 404, wherein, after considering various judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it has been held that when the complainant does not have any objection, the proceedings should come to an end. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘ Hyath (D) by Lrs’ 2017 (2) RCR (Criminal) 453 that once the settlement between the parties has been arrived at, the conviction can also be set aside and the litigation too. Similar view has been taken by a 2026 in/and (O&M) Instruments Act is essentially a civil wrong given the colour of criminal offence and once the dispute has been amicably settled and the complainant has received a substantial amount in full and final settlement, the very foundation of the complaint ceases to exist. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that both the aforesaid judgments passed by the Courts below be set aside and the petitioner be acquitted of the charge(s) levelled against her. Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent- complaint case and he is not aware of any compromise effected between the Mr. Jatin, Advocate has appeared through Video Conferencing mode and filed power of attorney on behalf of respondent No.2, which is taken on record. He submits that the matter has been compromised, the amount stands paid and he has no objection, if the present application is allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment Tilak Kataria vs. State of Haryana and another’, 2021 (3) RCR (Criminal) , wherein, after considering various judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it has been held that when the complainant does not have any objection, the hould come to an end. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘A.T. Sivaperumal vs. Mohammed Hyath (D) by Lrs’ 2017 (2) RCR (Criminal) 453 that once the settlement between the parties has been arrived at, the conviction can be set aside and the litigation too. Similar view has been taken by a -3- lly a civil wrong given the colour of criminal offence and once the dispute has been amicably settled and the complainant has received a substantial amount in full and final settlement, the very foundation of the for the petitioner prays that both the aforesaid judgments passed by the Courts below be set aside and the petitioner be On the asking of the Court, Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG, Punjab -State and submits that this is a complaint case and he is not aware of any compromise effected between the , Advocate has appeared through Video Conferencing mode on behalf of respondent No.2, which is taken on record. He submits that the matter has been compromised, the amount stands paid and he has no objection, if the present application is allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment in the case Tilak Kataria vs. State of Haryana and another’, 2021 (3) RCR (Criminal) , wherein, after considering various judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it has been held that when the complainant does not have any objection, the A.T. Sivaperumal vs. Mohammed Hyath (D) by Lrs’ 2017 (2) RCR (Criminal) 453, decided on 27.03.2017, has held that once the settlement between the parties has been arrived at, the conviction can be set aside and the litigation too. Similar view has been taken by a lly a civil wrong given the colour of criminal offence and once the dispute has been amicably settled and the complainant has received a substantial amount in full and final settlement, the very foundation of the for the petitioner prays that both the aforesaid judgments passed by the Courts below be set aside and the petitioner be On the asking of the Court, Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG, Punjab State and submits that this is a complaint case and he is not aware of any compromise effected between the , Advocate has appeared through Video Conferencing mode on behalf of respondent No.2, which is taken on record. He submits that the matter has been compromised, the amount stands paid in the case Tilak Kataria vs. State of Haryana and another’, 2021 (3) RCR (Criminal) , wherein, after considering various judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it has been held that when the complainant does not have any objection, the A.T. Sivaperumal vs. Mohammed , decided on 27.03.2017, has held that once the settlement between the parties has been arrived at, the conviction can be set aside and the litigation too. Similar view has been taken by a TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.25 19:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-11832-2026 in/and CRR-723-2026 Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of and another, 2021(4) RCR (Criminal) 86 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respon No.2, are ad-idem allowed and permission may be granted to the parties to compound the offence under Section 138 of the Act in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Damodar and Sanjabij Tari versus Kishore S.Borcar, 2025 INSC 1158 judgments and order passed by the learned trial Court and the learned Appellate Court may be set aside and the petitioner be 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 13. In the present case, the cheque(s) amount is Rs. the law laid down in offence can be allowed, provided the petitioner amount by way of costs. On calculation, 7.5% of the cheque amount comes to be Rs.1,12,500/-. As noticed above, the parties have settled the dispute by way of compromise. CRM compound the offence punishable under section 138 of the Act 14. In view of the above, the impugned judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence dated Magistrate Ist Class, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Section 138 of the Act stands dismissed and the petitioner stands acquitted of the charge(s), subject to her depositing the costs of Rs. 2026 in/and (O&M) Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of and another, 2021(4) RCR (Criminal) 86. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respon idem that the matter stands compromised and the petition may be allowed and permission may be granted to the parties to compound the offence under Section 138 of the Act in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H, 2010 (2) RCR (Criminal) 851 Sanjabij Tari versus Kishore S.Borcar, 2025 INSC 1158 judgments and order passed by the learned trial Court and the learned Appellate Court may be set aside and the petitioner be acquitted of the charge(s). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In the present case, the cheque(s) amount is Rs. the law laid down in Sanjabij Tari’s case (supra) offence can be allowed, provided the petitioner amount by way of costs. On calculation, 7.5% of the cheque amount comes to be . As noticed above, the parties have settled the dispute by way of CRM-11832-2026 is allowed and compound the offence punishable under section 138 of the Act In view of the above, the impugned judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence dated 01.08.2024 Magistrate Ist Class, SAS Nagar and the judgment dated learned Addl. Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, are set aside Section 138 of the Act stands dismissed and the petitioner stands acquitted of the ), subject to her depositing the costs of Rs. -4- Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jagmohan Vs. Sandeep Aggarwal Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent that the matter stands compromised and the petition may be allowed and permission may be granted to the parties to compound the offence under Section 138 of the Act in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H, 2010 (2) RCR (Criminal) 851 Sanjabij Tari versus Kishore S.Borcar, 2025 INSC 1158, the impugned judgments and order passed by the learned trial Court and the learned Appellate acquitted of the charge(s). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In the present case, the cheque(s) amount is Rs.15,00,000/-. In view of Sanjabij Tari’s case (supra), compounding of the present offence can be allowed, provided the petitioner-accused pays 7.5% of the cheque amount by way of costs. On calculation, 7.5% of the cheque amount comes to be . As noticed above, the parties have settled the dispute by way of 2026 is allowed and this Court grants permission to compound the offence punishable under section 138 of the Act In view of the above, the impugned judgment of conviction and order passed by the learned Judicial and the judgment dated 27.01.2026 passed by , are set aside. The complaint under Section 138 of the Act stands dismissed and the petitioner stands acquitted of the ), subject to her depositing the costs of Rs.1,12,500/- with the Punjab State Jagmohan Vs. Sandeep Aggarwal dent that the matter stands compromised and the petition may be allowed and permission may be granted to the parties to compound the offence under Section 138 of the Act in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H, 2010 (2) RCR (Criminal) 851 the impugned judgments and order passed by the learned trial Court and the learned Appellate . In view of present accused pays 7.5% of the cheque amount by way of costs. On calculation, 7.5% of the cheque amount comes to be . As noticed above, the parties have settled the dispute by way of this Court grants permission to In view of the above, the impugned judgment of conviction and order ned Judicial passed by he complaint under Section 138 of the Act stands dismissed and the petitioner stands acquitted of the with the Punjab State TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.25 19:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-11832-2026 in/and CRR-723-2026 Legal Services Authority, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjabij Tari’s case (supra) certified copy of this order. 15. The present 16. Registry is directed to ensure the compliance of this order as to depositing of costs by the petitioner. 17. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, March 24, 2026 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable 2026 in/and (O&M) Legal Services Authority, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Sanjabij Tari’s case (supra), within 15 days from the date of receipt of the of this order. The present revision petition is allowed in the aforementioned terms. Registry is directed to ensure the compliance of this order as to depositing of costs by the petitioner. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -5- Legal Services Authority, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme , within 15 days from the date of receipt of the petition is allowed in the aforementioned terms. Registry is directed to ensure the compliance of this order as to All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE : Speaking : Yes/No Legal Services Authority, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme , within 15 days from the date of receipt of the petition is allowed in the aforementioned terms. Registry is directed to ensure the compliance of this order as to stands disposed of. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.25 19:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document