Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010114302026 2026:GAU-AS:9602 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./824/2026 MD GOLAP HUSSAIN SON OF LATE ABDUS SABUR AHMED, R/O VILLAGE SILIGHAGRI, P.O. NAGARJHAR, P.S. MANIKPUR, DISTRICT BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, PIN CODE 783390. VERSUS MD REJAUL KARIM MANDAL AND ANR S/O AMZED HUSSAIN MANDAL, R/O VILLAGE NO. 2 BHANDARA, P.O. BHANDARA BAZAR, P.S. MANIKPUR, DISTRICT BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, PIN CODE 783390. 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K HUSSAIN, MR. B HUSSAIN,MS S HAZARIKA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. B CHOWDHURY (R2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 15.07.2026 1. Learned counsel Mr. A. K. Hussain is present for the petitioner Md. Golap Hussain; learned counsel Mr. B. Chowdhury is present for the respondent No. 1, Page No.# 2/4 Md. Rejaul Karim Mandal and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. P. S. Lahkar is present for the State of Assam/respondent No. 2. 2. The respondent No. 1 brought up a case against the petitioner which was registered as NICR Case No. 107/2018 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881. The petitioner Md. Golap Hussain was convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 6 lacs vide judgment dated 12.07.2024. Aggrieved by the judgment, the petitioner had preferred an appeal which was registered as Crl.A./10/2024 and this above order of conviction and sentence by the learned Trial Court was upheld by the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 10.03.2026. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Appellate Court, the petitioner is before this Court and Crl.Pet./824/2026 was filed but during the pendency of the proceedings, both the parties have amicably settled their dispute. 3. It has been submitted that the petitioner had already paid Rs. 6 lacs to the respondent No. 1. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has submitted that an amount of Rs. 6 lacs have been received by the respondent No. 1, Md. Rejaul Karim Mandal. 5. The petitioner has also relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Chand Garg Vs. Harpal Singh and Anr reported in 2025 6 Supreme 680, wherein it has been held that:- “9. In BV Seshaiah v State of Telangana & Anr (2023) SCC OnLine SC 96 this court was of the view that when parties enter into an agreement and compound the offence, they do so to save themselves from the process of litigation and when such a step is taken by the parties, the law very well allows them to do so. Hence, the courts cannot override such compounding and impose its will. 10. Therefore, it is very clear that although dishonour of cheque entails criminal Page No.# 3/4 consequence, the legislature by virtue of section 147 of the NI Act has made it compoundable notwithstanding the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the same can be compounded at any stage of the proceedings especially when the parties have themselves arrived at a voluntary compromise. 11. In the present case, the compromise deed dated 06.04.2025 and the Affidavit on behalf of the Respondent No.1 dated 16.04.2025 is annexed to the present petition as Annexure P3 and P6, respectively Upon careful perusal of the recitals contained in the said documents, it clearly emerges that the Respondent No.1 in consideration of Two Demand Drafts bearing no(s) 004348 dated 04.04.2025 and 004303 dated 11.02.2025 for Rs 2.5 lakhs cash along with three cheques bearing no(s) 354412 dated 10.05.2025, 354413 dated 10.06.2025 and 354414 dated 10.07 2025 of Rs 1 lakh cash has arrived at a compromise with appellant without any coercion and at his own will and voluntarily Once the complainant has signed the compromise deed accepting the amount in full and final settlement of the default sum the proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act cannot hold water. therefore, the concurrent conviction rendered by the Courts below has to be set-aside. 12. Therefore, in the light of aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that the present appeal deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the same stands Allowed and consequently the impugned order dated 27.03.2025 in CRR 2563 of 2025 is set aside and the order of conviction and sentence imposed on appellant is quashed.” 6. The petitioner has also relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Parsharvanath Weld Wires Pvt Ltd Vs. State of Chattisgarh in connection with Criminal Appeal No. 2904/2026, wherein it has been held that:- “5. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Gian Chand Garg vs. Harpal Singh and Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2317, we have no hesitation to accept the compromise entered into and compound the offence, particularly in the light of settlement arrived at between the parties. 6. Hence, the present appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned judgment dated 11.05.2026 rendered in CRMP No.1328/2026 by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur is set aside and the order of conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant is quashed.” 7. In the light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Chand Page No.# 4/4 Garg(supra) and Parsharvanath Weld Wires Pvt Ltd(supra), the decision of the learned Trial Court dated 12.07.2024 in connection with NICR Case No. 107/2018 and the decision of the Appellate Court in Crl.A./10/2024 vide judgment dated 10.03.2026 are set aside and quashed and also the sentence and the imprisonment of 3 months is set aside. 8. In terms of the above observation this petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant