CRM-28641-2026 in CRR-2039-2025 (O & M) and CRR-1994-2025 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (118-2) Date of decision: 17.07.2026 (1) CRM-28641-2026 in CRR-2039-2025 (O & M) Bhupinder Singh .... Petitioner V/s State of Punjab and anr. . ...Respondents (2) CRR-1994-2025 Bhupinder Singh .... Petitioner V/s State of Punjab and anr. . ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Dr. Rau P.S. Girwar, Advocate, with Ms. K.T. Rau, Advocate, Ms. Archan Arora Rau, Advocate, and Mr. Yadvinder Pal Markan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Adeshwar S. Pannu, AAG, Punjab. Ms. Rajvinder Kaur, Advocate, for Mr. Hitesh Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.2-complainant (in both the cases). ***** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of two criminal revision petitions bearing Nos. 2039-2025 and 1994-2025 arising out of same cause of action. SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.18 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM-28641-2026 in CRR-2039-2025 (O & M) and CRR-1994-2025 (O & M) ::2:: 2. The present revision petitions have been filed against the two separate orders dated 04.07.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide which the two separate appeals preferred by the petitioner against the judgments of conviction and orders of sentence dated 11.02.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda, have been dismissed. 3. The brief facts of the case are that in order to discharge his legal liability, the accused-petitioner/ Bhupinder Singh issued two separate cheques i.e. cheque bearing No.429847 dated 25.07.2016 for a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- in favour of the complainant-respondent No.2/Raghbir Singh (in CRR-2039-2025) and cheque bearing No.429845 dated 20.12.2016 for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- in favour of the complaiant-respondent No.2/Buta Singh (in CRR-1994-2025). On presentation of the aforesaid cheques for encashment by the complainants in the respective cases, the same were returned back dishonoured vide bank memo dated 26.07.2016 and 07.02.2017 respectively with the remarks “funds insufficient”. The accused was served with separate legal notices dated 05.08.2016 and 14.02.2017 to make the payments of the aforesaid cheques amount within 15 days but he failed to make the same, leading to initiation of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. In the two separate complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed by the complainant-Raghbir Singh i.e. COMA-1986-2016 (on account of dishonour of the cheque No.429847 dated 25.07.2016 for a sum of Rs.11,00,000/-) and COMA-493-2017 (on account of dishonour of cheque No.429845 dated 20.12.2016 for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-), the petitioner-accused was summoned to face the trial. The SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.18 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM-28641-2026 in CRR-2039-2025 (O & M) and CRR-1994-2025 (O & M) ::3:: evidence was led and ultimately, accused-petitioner was held guilty and accordingly, convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years in each complaint and to pay a compensation to the complainant to the tune of both the cheques’ amount i.e. Rs.11,00,000/- and Rs.15,00,000/- respectively alongwith 9% per annum from the date of issuance of the cheques in question till 11.02.2019 i.e. the date of judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda in the respective complaint. 4. That aggrieved against the judgments of conviction and orders of sentence dated 11.02.2019 in both the above-mentioned complaints, the petitioner preferred two separate appeals (CRA/150/2019 and CRA/151/2019) before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda which came to be dismissed vide separate judgments dated 04.07.2025. 5. Still aggrieved against the separate judgments dated 04.07.2025 in CRA/150/2019 and CRA/151/2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, the present revision petitions have been preferred by the accused-petitioner. During the pendency of the present criminal revision petitions, an application (CRM-28641-2026 in CRR-2039-2025) under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 read with Section 320 Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 359 BNSS) read with Section 528 BNSS (Section 482 Cr.P.C.) has been made for permitting the compounding of the offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in view of the settlement dated 13.07.2026 arrived at between the parties. A copy of the compromise dated 13.07.2026 is attached to the aforesaid application as SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.18 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM-28641-2026 in CRR-2039-2025 (O & M) and CRR-1994-2025 (O & M) ::4:: Annexure A-2. In terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties i.e. the accused-petitioner/Bhupinder Singh on the one hand and both the complainants, namely, Raghbir Singh (in CRR-2039-2025), Buta Singh (in CRR-1994-2025) and one Manpreet Singh, the accused-petitioner has made the entire payment i.e. Rs.20,00,000/- by way of a two demand drafts for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- each. Out of which, one demand draft has already been delivered to the complainant and the other demand draft has been deposited with Shri Krishan Kumar Gohil, Advocate as security in terms of the compromise and shall be released upon completion of the agreed obligations by the parties. Thus, the entire settled amount stands secured in favour of the complainant as full and final settlement of the dispute. It would be relevant to mention here that a reading of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 320 Cr.P.C. would show that where a settlement has been effected, the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be compounded on account of the fact that a mutual compromise has been effected between the parties. 6. The learned counsel for State as well as the counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 (in both the cases) contend that as the matter has been settled between the parties, they have no objection if the prayer made in the application for compounding the offence under Section 138 N.I. Act is allowed and the petitioner is acquitted of the charges framed against him in both the complaints. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. 8. This Hon’ble Court in ‘Ramesh Chander Vs. State of Haryana and another, 2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 245’ held as under:- SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.18 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM-28641-2026 in CRR-2039-2025 (O & M) and CRR-1994-2025 (O & M) ::5:: “4. As per the provisions of Section 147 of the Act, the offence under Section 138 is compoundable. Section 147 reads as under: “Offence to be compoundable- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973(2 of 1974), every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable”. 5. The compounding of the offence under Section 138 can be done during the trial of the case as well as by the High Court or Court of Session while acting in the exercise of its power of revision under Section 401 Criminal Procedure Code Reference may be made to Section 320(6) Criminal Procedure Code in this regard. 6. Further, under Section 320(8) Criminal Procedure Code the composition of an offence shall have the effect of acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded.” 9. This Court in 'Vatsa Electronics Vs. Pala Ram & Anr. decided on 09.03.2022 in CRR-1585-2019' has also held that once a settlement is being effected, then in terms of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 320 Cr.P.C., the accused ought to be acquitted as the offence stands compounded. 10. In view of the above, since, the parties have voluntarily settled the disputes between themselves, it is a fit case for allowing them to compound the offence. 11. Accordingly, the revision petitions alongwith the application for compounding the offence is allowed and subject to payment of Rs.25,000/- each as costs to be deposited with Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.18 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM-28641-2026 in CRR-2039-2025 (O & M) and CRR-1994-2025 (O & M) ::6:: Association, Chandigarh, Account No.65035682434, SBI High Court Branch, IFSC:-SBIN0050306, the order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda in both the appeals as well as the judgments of conviction and orders of sentence dated 11.02.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda in both the complaint cases are hereby set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in both the complaints. 12. The petitioner is ordered to be released forthwith in case he is not required in any other case. 13. Since the main petitions have been disposed of no order needs to be passed in the pending application(s), if any, 14. A copy of this order be placed on the file of connected case bearing No.1994-2025 titled as ‘Bhupinder Singh versus State of Punjab and another’. ( JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE July 17, 2026 sukhpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.18 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh