CRR-711-2018 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 252 CRR-711-2018 Date of decision: 12.08.2026 SUNIL ....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS M/S SHRI RAM TRANSPORT FINANCE LTD. ...RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Vibhu Agnihotri, Advocate, and Mr. Pushp Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Radhika, Advocate for Mr. Mayank Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 31.05.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction dated 25.09.2015 and order of sentence dated 30.09.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Faridabad, has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that in discharge of his legal liability, the petitioner/accused issued a cheque bearing No.584921 dated 12.12.2013 for an amount of Rs.3,55,000/- (subject matter of CRR-712-2018) and a cheque bearing No.916920 dated 12.12.2013 for an amount of Rs.2,90,000/- (subject matter of CRR-711-2018) in favour of respondent/complainant, which came to be dishonoured. The accused-petitioner was served with a legal notice dated 23.12.2013 for making the payment but the accused-petitioner failed to do so, leading to initiation of KUSUM 2026.08.13 19:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh CRR-711-2018 2

proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 3. In the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed by the complainant/respondent, the accused/petitioner was summoned to face trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The evidence was led and ultimately, the petitioner/accused 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 one year along with compensation of Rs.4,32,000/-. 4. Aggrieved against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner-accused preferred two separate appeals bearing Crl. Appeal No.81 and Crl. Appeal No.82 of 26.10.2015 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, which came to be dismissed on 31.05.2017. 5. Still aggrieved, the present revision petition (CRR-711-2018) has been preferred by the accused against the judgment in Crl. Appeal No.82 of 2015.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that during the pendency of the present criminal revision petition, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. He contends that a combined reading of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alongwith Section 320 Cr.P.C. would establish 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. KUSUM 2026.08.13 19:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh CRR-711-2018 3 6. The learned counsel for respondent/complainant has accepted the factum of the compromise and has stated that he has no objection if the petitioner is acquitted of the charges framed against him as against the cheque amounts of Rs.6,45,000/-, Rs.3.5 lakhs stand paid. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 8. This Court in ‘Ramesh Chander Vs. State of Haryana and another, 2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 245’ held as under:-“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. KUSUM 2026.08.13 19:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh CRR-711-2018 4 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 petition is allowed and subject to payment of Rs.25,000/- as costs to be deposited with Day Care Centre for Elderly Disabled in home for Old & Destitute People, Sector-15, Chandigarh is being run by Chandigarh Scheduled Castes, Backward Classes & Minorities Financial & Development Corporation, the judgment dated 31.05.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad as well as the judgment of conviction dated 25.09.2015 and order of sentence dated 30.09.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Faridabad are hereby set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 12. Since the main petition has been disposed of no order needs to be passed in the pending application(s), if any, (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE 12.08.2026 Kusum Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No KUSUM 2026.08.13 19:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh

CRR-711-2018 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 252 CRR-711-2018 Date of decision: 12.08.2026 SUNIL ....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS M/S SHRI RAM TRANSPORT FINANCE LTD. ...RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Vibhu Agnihotri, Advocate, and Mr. Pushp Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Radhika, Advocate for Mr. Mayank Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 31.05.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction dated 25.09.2015 and order of sentence dated 30.09.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Faridabad, has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that in discharge of his legal liability, the petitioner/accused issued a cheque bearing No.584921 dated 12.12.2013 for an amount of Rs.3,55,000/- (subject matter of CRR-712-2018) and a cheque bearing No.916920 dated 12.12.2013 for an amount of Rs.2,90,000/- (subject matter of CRR-711-2018) in favour of respondent/complainant, which came to be dishonoured. The accused-petitioner was served with a legal notice dated 23.12.2013 for making the payment but the accused-petitioner failed to do so, leading to initiation of KUSUM 2026.08.13 19:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh CRR-711-2018 2

proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 3. In the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed by the complainant/respondent, the accused/petitioner was summoned to face trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The evidence was led and ultimately, the petitioner/accused 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 one year along with compensation of Rs.4,32,000/-. 4. Aggrieved against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner-accused preferred two separate appeals bearing Crl. Appeal No.81 and Crl. Appeal No.82 of 26.10.2015 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, which came to be dismissed on 31.05.2017. 5. Still aggrieved, the present revision petition (CRR-711-2018) has been preferred by the accused against the judgment in Crl. Appeal No.82 of 2015.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that during the pendency of the present criminal revision petition, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. He contends that a combined reading of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alongwith Section 320 Cr.P.C. would establish 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. KUSUM 2026.08.13 19:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh CRR-711-2018 3 6. The learned counsel for respondent/complainant has accepted the factum of the compromise and has stated that he has no objection if the petitioner is acquitted of the charges framed against him as against the cheque amounts of Rs.6,45,000/-, Rs.3.5 lakhs stand paid. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 8. This Court in ‘Ramesh Chander Vs. State of Haryana and another, 2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 245’ held as under:-“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. KUSUM 2026.08.13 19:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh CRR-711-2018 4 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 petition is allowed and subject to payment of Rs.25,000/- as costs to be deposited with Day Care Centre for Elderly Disabled in home for Old & Destitute People, Sector-15, Chandigarh is being run by Chandigarh Scheduled Castes, Backward Classes & Minorities Financial & Development Corporation, the judgment dated 31.05.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad as well as the judgment of conviction dated 25.09.2015 and order of sentence dated 30.09.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Faridabad are hereby set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 12. Since the main petition has been disposed of no order needs to be passed in the pending application(s), if any, (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE 12.08.2026 Kusum Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No KUSUM 2026.08.13 19:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh