Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajesh Kumar Sharma Alias Ajesh Sharma vs State Of Haryana And Another on 4 November, 2025
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
CRR No.2724 of 2025 (O&M) -1-
125
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR No.2724 of 2025 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 04.11.2025
Ajesh Kumar Sharma ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr. Dinesh Saini, Advocate
for the petitioner.
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)
1. Present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner wherein he has challenged the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar dated 24.04.2025 dismissing appeal preferred by the petitioner against the conviction and order of sentence dated 16/21.10.2023 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jhajjar whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act for 01 year simple imprisonment and to pay a sum of Rs.6 lacs as cheque amount and further direct to pay Rs. 2 lacs as compensation to the complainant/respondent No.2.
2. The case as enumerated from the facts is that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2025 13:25:15 ::: CRR No.2724 of 2025 (O&M) -2- 'the NI Act) was filed against the petitioner by respondent No.2 on the allegations that the accused-petitioner borrowed an amount of Rs.26 lacs as friendly loan from complainant-respondent No.2. In order to discharge his legal liability, the petitioner issued three post dated cheques dated 05.11.2017, 05.12.2017 and 05.01.2018 for a sum of Rs.10 lacs/- drawn at Corporation Bank, Branch Janakpuri, New Delhi in favour of the complainant. However, on presentation, the said cheques were dishonoured with the remark "Funds Insufficent". Legal notice was sent by the complainant to the petitioner, but the petitioner failed to make the payment of the cheque amount and thus, a complaint was filed. On the conclusion of trial, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence awarded by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, the petitioner assailed the same by way of filing an appeal before the learned Appellate Court. Learned Appellate Court, finding no merit in the appeal, dismissed the same by upholding the conviction of the petitioner vide its order dated 24.04.2025. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present revision petition challenging the above said orders.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the parties have already entered into a compromise and an amount of Rs.22,00,000/- has already been paid to the complainant-respondent No.2 by the petitioner as full and final settlement and now nothing is due 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2025 13:25:16 ::: CRR No.2724 of 2025 (O&M) -3- against him. He further submits that in view of the settlement effected between the parties, the petitioner be allowed to compound the offence and he be acquitted of the charges under Section 138 of the Act and the order under challenge in the present petition be set aside. He has placed reliance on the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Reddy Kallem vs. The State of Haryana and another, Law Finder Doc Id# 2557645, wherein, it has been held that there is no bar to seek the compounding of the offence at later stage of criminal proceedings including after conviction. He has further submitted that the petitioner is unable to pay the compensation as per requirement in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjabij Tari Vs. Kishore S. Borcar and Another, 2025 Livelaw (SC) 952. Thus, he prays for dispensing with the condition of deposit of 7.5% of the compensation amount keeping in view the poor financial condition of the petitioner.
4. Notice of motion.
5. Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl. A.G., Haryana notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Ravi Kumar Girdhwal, Advocate, has put in appearance and filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant/respondent No.2.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has affirmed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that complainant-respondent No.2 has received the settled amount of Rs.22,00,000/- and he has no objection, if the present petition is allowed.
7. As the parties have compromised the matter and have buried the hatchet, no purpose would be served by punishing the petitioner, who 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2025 13:25:16 ::: CRR No.2724 of 2025 (O&M) -4- has already honoured the terms of the compromise, which fact has been affirmed by learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant. In Raj Reddy Kallem's case (supra), it has been held that the accused must try for compounding of the offence at the initial stages instead of later stages, however, there is no bar to seek the compounding of offence at later stage of criminal proceedings including after conviction.
8. So keeping in view above facts and the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner is allowed to compound the offence and he is ordered to be acquitted of the charges framed against him. As a consequences, the order dated 24.04.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar and order dated 16/21.10.2023 passed by learned Additional Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jhajjar, convicting and sentencing the petitioner under Section 138 of the NI Act, are set aside.
9. While taking into consideration the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjabij Tari's case (supra), and the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding poor financial condition of the petitioner, the petitioner is allowed to compound the offence subject to deposit of Rs.15,000/ to be paid to 'Poor Patients' Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh'. Receipt of the costs shall be deposited in the Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jhajjar within one month from the receipt of copy of this order.
4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2025 13:25:16 ::: CRR No.2724 of 2025 (O&M) -5-
10. In case the petitioner fails to deposit the abovesaid amount within one month from today, this order would be of no avail to him and the present petition would be deemed to have been dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to the Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jhajjar, for necessary action forthwith.
11. Present Revision petition is allowed. The petitioner be set at liberty if not required in any other case. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
04.11.2025 JUDGE
ps-I
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2025 13:25:16 :::