Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2026 DAILYLAW 17455 (PNJ)

VIKAS KUMAR v. PAWAN KUMAR AND ANR

CRR/1410/2024 · 2026-03-25

Mandeep Pannu

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRM-11731-2026 in/and CRR-1410-2024 (O&M) 116 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Vikas Kumar Pawan Kumar and Another CORAM : HON'BLE MS Present: Mr. MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. The petitioner has filed the instant the impugned judgment of conviction dated 21.08.2017 whereby he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo a period of 01 year 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. dated 04.07.2026 the appeal of the petitioner against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that cordial relations with the complainant and he requested to the complainant to lend the money of Rs.1,00,000/ domestic need and the keeping in view the cordial relations and genuine personal need of the accused and genuine personal need of the accused and it 2026 in/and (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM CRR Date of Decision : VERSUS and Another HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Gaurav Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) The petitioner has filed the instant the impugned judgment of conviction dated 18.08.2017 21.08.2017, passed by the learned Chief whereby he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo 1 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. 04.07.2026, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, the appeal of the petitioner against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been dismissed. The brief facts of the case are that cordial relations with the complainant and he requested to the complainant to lend the money of Rs.1,00,000/- as he is in need of sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ domestic need and the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ keeping in view the cordial relations and genuine personal need of the accused and genuine personal need of the accused and it was assured by the accused at that time -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-11731-2026 in/and CRR-1410-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision : 25.03.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU , Advocate for the petitioner. The petitioner has filed the instant revision petition for setting aside dated 18.08.2017 and order of sentence Chief Judicial Magistrate Fatehabad, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 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.90,000/- as also the judgment , passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, vide which the appeal of the petitioner against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order The brief facts of the case are that the accused had been having cordial relations with the complainant and he requested to the complainant to lend as he is in need of sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to fulfill his complainant paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the accused keeping in view the cordial relations and genuine personal need of the accused and was assured by the accused at that time setting aside and order of sentence Fatehabad, isonment for for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') and to pay compensation to the as also the judgment , vide which the appeal of the petitioner against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order been having cordial relations with the complainant and he requested to the complainant to lend to fulfill his to the accused keeping in view the cordial relations and genuine personal need of the accused and was assured by the accused at that time TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.25 20:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-11731-2026 in/and CRR-1410-2024 (O&M) that he will repay the said amount to the complainant as soon as possible and the accused was under lawful liability to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ demanded his above after great efforts of the complainant, the accused agreed to repay the above amount of Rs. 1,00,00 liability, the accused issued a cheque no. 712465 dated 23.03.2016 amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- of his account no. 30697741758 maintained by him with State Bank of India Branch Mini Secretariat, assured to the complainant that on presentation of cheque, the same will be honoured, but the accused was dishonest right from the beginning and fully knowing that the cheque on presentation cannot be honoured a insufficient funds in the account to honour the cheque. The complainant deposited the said cheque no. 712465 dated 23.03.2016 in his account with State Bank of India Branch Mini Secretariat, Fatehabad in order to collect the said amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- of said cheque and State Bank of India Branch Mini Secretariat, Fatehabad returned this cheque as unpaid to the complainant with his memo of dishonur dated 13.04.2016 on the ground that there is insufficient fund in the account of the accused wi no. 712465 dated 23.03.2016 of 3. It has been further averred that after receipt of the said unpaid, the complainant served a legal notice to the post on 26.04.2016 with acknowledgment due through his counsel Sh. Sunil Kumar Dharnia, Advocate, Fatehabad, to the accused thereby calling upon to him to make the payment of Rs. 1,00,000/ receipt of the notice and the notice has been duly served to the accused, but despite service of legal notice, the accused has not made the payment of the cheque 2026 in/and (O&M) that he will repay the said amount to the complainant as soon as possible and the d was under lawful liability to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ demanded his above-mentioned amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ after great efforts of the complainant, the accused agreed to repay the above amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant. In discharge of the above liability, the accused issued a cheque no. 712465 dated 23.03.2016 amounting to of his account no. 30697741758 maintained by him with State Bank of India Branch Mini Secretariat, Fatehabad in the name of the complainant and assured to the complainant that on presentation of cheque, the same will be honoured, but the accused was dishonest right from the beginning and fully knowing that the cheque on presentation cannot be honoured a insufficient funds in the account to honour the cheque. The complainant deposited the said cheque no. 712465 dated 23.03.2016 in his account with State Bank of India Branch Mini Secretariat, Fatehabad in order to collect the said amount of Rs. of said cheque and State Bank of India Branch Mini Secretariat, Fatehabad returned this cheque as unpaid to the complainant with his memo of dishonur dated 13.04.2016 on the ground that there is insufficient fund in the account of the accused with the remarks 'funds insufficient' and thus said cheque no. 712465 dated 23.03.2016 of accused Vikas Kumar has been dishonoured. It has been further averred that after receipt of the said unpaid, the complainant served a legal notice to the post on 26.04.2016 with acknowledgment due through his counsel Sh. Sunil Kumar Dharnia, Advocate, Fatehabad, to the accused thereby calling upon to him to make the payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant within 15 days of th receipt of the notice and the notice has been duly served to the accused, but despite service of legal notice, the accused has not made the payment of the cheque -2- that he will repay the said amount to the complainant as soon as possible and the d was under lawful liability to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The complainant mentioned amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the accused and after great efforts of the complainant, the accused agreed to repay the above-said to the complainant. In discharge of the above-said lawful liability, the accused issued a cheque no. 712465 dated 23.03.2016 amounting to of his account no. 30697741758 maintained by him with State Bank Fatehabad in the name of the complainant and assured to the complainant that on presentation of cheque, the same will be honoured, but the accused was dishonest right from the beginning and fully knowing that the cheque on presentation cannot be honoured as there was insufficient funds in the account to honour the cheque. The complainant deposited the said cheque no. 712465 dated 23.03.2016 in his account with State Bank of India Branch Mini Secretariat, Fatehabad in order to collect the said amount of Rs. of said cheque and State Bank of India Branch Mini Secretariat, Fatehabad returned this cheque as unpaid to the complainant with his memo of dishonur dated 13.04.2016 on the ground that there is insufficient fund in the th the remarks 'funds insufficient' and thus said cheque accused Vikas Kumar has been dishonoured. It has been further averred that after receipt of the said cheque as unpaid, the complainant served a legal notice to the accused through registered post on 26.04.2016 with acknowledgment due through his counsel Sh. Sunil Kumar Dharnia, Advocate, Fatehabad, to the accused thereby calling upon to him to the complainant within 15 days of th receipt of the notice and the notice has been duly served to the accused, but despite service of legal notice, the accused has not made the payment of the cheque that he will repay the said amount to the complainant as soon as possible and the . The complainant from the accused and said said lawful liability, the accused issued a cheque no. 712465 dated 23.03.2016 amounting to of his account no. 30697741758 maintained by him with State Bank Fatehabad in the name of the complainant and assured to the complainant that on presentation of cheque, the same will be honoured, but the accused was dishonest right from the beginning and fully s there was insufficient funds in the account to honour the cheque. The complainant deposited the said cheque no. 712465 dated 23.03.2016 in his account with State Bank of India Branch Mini Secretariat, Fatehabad in order to collect the said amount of Rs. of said cheque and State Bank of India Branch Mini Secretariat, Fatehabad returned this cheque as unpaid to the complainant with his memo of dishonur dated 13.04.2016 on the ground that there is insufficient fund in the th the remarks 'funds insufficient' and thus said cheque cheque as accused through registered post on 26.04.2016 with acknowledgment due through his counsel Sh. Sunil Kumar Dharnia, Advocate, Fatehabad, to the accused thereby calling upon to him to the complainant within 15 days of the receipt of the notice and the notice has been duly served to the accused, but despite service of legal notice, the accused has not made the payment of the cheque TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.25 20:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-11731-2026 in/and CRR-1410-2024 (O&M) amount and even did not bother to give reply of the legal notice. The accused has issued the cheque to the complainant knowingly that there is insufficient fund in the account of the accused. Hence, the present complaint. 4. 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 pay compensation to the respondent No.2 to the tune of cheque amount i.e. Rs. by the learned aggrieved, the present petitioner has filed the appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the present revision petition has been filed. 5. The petitioner under Section 147 of the Act permission from this Court to compound the offence and to acquit charges under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner averred that after dismissing of the appeal filed by the petitioner, both the petitioner paid an amount of Rs. He further submits that the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable 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 f 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 aga 7. Notice of motion. 2026 in/and (O&M) amount and even did not bother to give reply of the legal notice. The accused has cheque to the complainant knowingly that there is insufficient fund in the account of the accused. Hence, the present complaint. 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 pay compensation to the respondent No.2 to the tune of cheque amount i.e. Rs. by the learned Chief Judicial Magistarate, vide order d aggrieved, the present petitioner has filed the appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, vide order dated 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 528 of BNSS/482 Cr.P.C permission from this Court to compound the offence and to acquit charges under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Learned counsel for the petitioner averred that after dismissing of the appeal filed by the petitioner, both the parties compromised the matter and petitioner paid an amount of Rs.60,000/- as full and final settlement of the dispute. further submits that the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable 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. -3- amount and even did not bother to give reply of the legal notice. The accused has cheque to the complainant knowingly that there is insufficient fund in the account of the accused. Hence, the present complaint. 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. Rs.90,000 , vide order dated 21.08.2017. Feeling aggrieved, the present petitioner has filed the appeal, which was dismissed by the , vide order dated 04.07.2024. Hence has also filed an application i.e. CRM-11731-2026 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 after dismissing of the parties compromised the matter and as full and final settlement of the dispute. further submits that the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable 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 ull 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 amount and even did not bother to give reply of the legal notice. The accused has cheque to the complainant knowingly that there is insufficient fund in simple for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') and to pay 90,000/- . Feeling aggrieved, the present petitioner has filed the appeal, which was dismissed by the . Hence 2026 , seeking of the Learned counsel for the petitioner averred that after dismissing of the parties compromised the matter and the as full and final settlement of the dispute. further submits that the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable 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 ull 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 TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.25 20:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-11731-2026 in/and CRR-1410-2024 (O&M) 8. 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. 9. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment in the case of ‘Tilak Kataria vs. State of Haryana and another’, 2021 (3) RCR (Criminal) 404, wherein, after considering various has been held that when the complainant does not have any objection, the proceedings should come to an end. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘ Hyath (D) by Lrs’ 2017 (2) RCR (Criminal) 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 Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of and another, 2021(4) RCR (Criminal) 86 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.2, are ad-idem allowed and permission may be granted to the pa under Section 138 of the Act in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H, 2010 (2) RCR (Criminal) 851 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 acquitted of the charge(s). 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2026 in/and (O&M) 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 No one has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant 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 proceedings should 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 also be set aside and the litigation too. Similar view has been taken by a 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 respondent idem that the matter stands compromised and the petition may be allowed and permission may be granted to the pa 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. -4- 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 No one has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment in the case Tilak Kataria vs. State of Haryana and another’, 2021 (3) RCR (Criminal) 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 453, decided on 27.03.2017, has held 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 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 Damodar 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 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. 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 Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment in the case Tilak Kataria vs. State of Haryana and another’, 2021 (3) RCR (Criminal) 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 also be set aside and the litigation too. Similar view has been taken by a Sandeep Aggarwal Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent that the matter stands compromised and the petition may be rties 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 the impugned judgments and order passed by the learned trial Court and the learned Appellate TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.25 20:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-11731-2026 in/and CRR-1410-2024 (O&M) 14. In the pre the law laid down in offence can be allowed, provided the petitioner amount by way of costs. On calculation, Rs.6,750/-. As noticed above, the parties have settled the dispute by way of compromise. CRM compound the offence punishable under section 138 of the Act 15. In view of the above, the impugned 18.08.2017 and order of sentence dated Judicial Magistrate 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. Legal Services Authority, in view of the law laid down Court in Sanjabij Tari’s case (supra) certified copy of this order. 16. The present 17. Registry is directed to ensure the depositing of costs by the petitioner. 18. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. March 25, 2026 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable 2026 in/and (O&M) 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-11731-2026 is allowed and compound the offence punishable under section 138 of the Act In view of the above, the impugned and order of sentence dated 21.08.2017 Judicial Magistrate Fatehabad and the judgment dated learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, are set aside Section 138 of the Act stands dismissed and the petitioner stands acquitted of the charge(s), subject to her depositing the costs of Rs. Legal Services Authority, in view of the law laid down Sanjabij Tari’s case (supra), within 15 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The present revision petition is allowed in the aforementioned terms. Registry is directed to ensure the depositing of costs by the petitioner. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -5- sent case, the cheque(s) amount is Rs.90,000/-. 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 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 dated 21.08.2017 passed by the learned Chief and the judgment dated 04.07.2024 passed by are set aside. The complaint under Section 138 of the Act stands dismissed and the petitioner stands acquitted of the charge(s), subject to her depositing the costs of Rs.6.750/- with the Punjab State 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 . In view of , compounding of the present accused pays 7.5% of the cheque 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 dated Chief passed by he complaint under Section 138 of the Act stands dismissed and the petitioner stands acquitted of the with the Punjab State by the Hon'ble Supreme , within 15 days from the date of receipt of the petition is allowed in the aforementioned terms. compliance of this order as to All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.25 20:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document