Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ishwar Singh vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 1 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029379
CRR-26-2025 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
235
CRR-26-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 01.03.2025
Ishwar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Mr. Lalit Kumar Narang, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Dushyant Singh, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.
MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)
1. CRM-669-2025
Prayer in this application is for compounding the offence in view
of the fact that the parties have amicably settled their dispute.
Since the prayer made in this application has direct bearing on the
main revision petition, the application is disposed of and let the main case,
which is also listed today, be taken up.
2. CRR-26-2025 (O&M)
The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment
of conviction dated 30.07.2024 and order on quantum of sentence dated
31.07.2024, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Bhiwani in complaint bearing No. 3813/2019, titled as Shri Ram Transport
Finance Company Limited vs. Ishwar Singh, filed under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'N. I. Act'), whereby the petitioner
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029379
CRR-26-2025 (O&M) -2-
was held guilty for commission of offence punishable under the aforesaid
section and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one
year and to pay compensation to the complainant/respondent No. 2 to the tune
of cheque amount i.e. Rs. 1,60,000/- along with interest @ 10% per annum
from the date of issuance of cheque in question till the date of order. The
petitioner has also laid challenge to the judgment dated 16.10.2024, passed by
the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, whereby the appeal
of the petitioner had been dismissed.
3. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this
revision petition are that the petitioner/accused had obtained loan of
Rs. 1,64,918/- as working capital loan. The petitioner, in order to discharge his
legally enforceable debt, had issued a cheque for Rs. 1,60,000/-. However, on
presentation of the said cheque by the complainant before its banker, the same
was dishonoured with the remarks 'funds insufficient'. The petitioner was
served with a legal notice dated 04.06.2019 but he failed to make payment
within the time stipulated. Aggrieved from the same, the respondent filed the
aforesaid complaint under Section 138 of N. I. Act, in which, the petitioner was
held guilty and sentenced as mentioned above. His appeal too was dismissed
by the learned appellate Court. Hence, the present revision petition. During the
pendency of this petition, the sentence of the petitioner was suspended, vide or-
der dated 15.01.2025 and since then, he is on bail.
4. Now the petitioner has filed aforesaid application bearing number
CRM-669-2025 for compounding the offence for which he has been held guilty
and convicted.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029379
CRR-26-2025 (O&M) -3-
5. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that an amicable
settlement has been arrived at between the petitioner and respondent
No. 2/complainant. In pursuance of the said settlement, the entire disputed
amount has been given by the petitioner to the complainant. It is submitted that
the complainant also admits the factum of the above stated settlement having
been arrived between the parties and about receipt of entire disputed amount
and therefore, he deserves to be granted permission to compound the offence.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2/complainant has affirmed
the factum of receiving the entire disputed amount from the petitioner and has
submitted that he has no objection if the offence is compounded in favour of
the petitioner and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by
learned trial Court and affirmed by learned appellate Court are quashed and set
aside.
7. Section 147 of N. I. Act makes all offences under this Act as
compoundable offences. It is well settled proposition of law by now that in
view of the provisions contained under this Section read with Section 320 of
Cr.P.C., a compromise arrived inter se parties can be accepted and the offence
committed under Section 138 of N. I. Act, can be ordered to be compounded
even after conviction. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment
dated 02.03.2022 pronounced by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in
Criminal Misc. (main) petition No. 107 of 2022 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
titled as Hiranand Shastri Vs. Ram Rattan Thakur and another, wherein it
was observed that the judgment of conviction recorded under Section 138 of N.
I. Act can be recalled, in view of the specific provisions contained under
Section 147 of the Act, which provide for compounding of offence allegedly
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029379
CRR-26-2025 (O&M) -4-
committed under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Similar proposition of law was laid
down in the judgment dated 21.12.2021 in CRM-M-No. 2499-2021 in Geeta
Devi Vs. Surinder Singh and another', wherein it was observed by the High
Court of Himachal Pradesh that the Court has ample powers under Section 147
of N.I. Act to compound the offence in those cases, where the accused already
stands convicted. Reference can also be made to the authority cited as Sube
Singh and another vs. State of Haryana and another, 2013 (4) R.C.R.
(Criminal) 102, wherein a Division Bench of this Court has held that even after
the conviction, if the parties have settled the dispute amicably and have
decided to live in peace and harmony, this Court, in exercise of powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., can compound the offence.
8. In Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed babalal H. 2010(2) RCR
(Criminal) 851,, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had laid down several guidelines
with regard to the proceedings conducted in connection with complaints filed
under Section 138 of NI Act. It was observed that the interest of the com-
plainant lied primarily in recovering the money rather than seeing the drawer of
the cheque in jail with respect to the offence of dishonour of the cheque and it
is compensatory aspect of the remedy which should be given priority over the
punitive aspect. In Raj Reddy Kallen Vs. State of Haryana and another (2024)
5 SCR 203, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that keeping in mind
that 'compensatory aspect,' of remedy shall have priority over the 'punitive as-
pect', courts should encourage compounding of offences under the N.I. Act, if
the parties are willing to do so.
9. In the instant case, as discussed above, the parties have settled
their dispute amicably, in pursuance of which, the entire disputed amount has
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029379
CRR-26-2025 (O&M) -5-
been paid by the petitioner to the respondent. Their statements recorded on
04.02.2025 before the trial Magistrate have been received, wherein factum of
compromise has been admitted. This fact is also affirmed by learned counsel
for the complainant. He has stated that the complainant has no objection if the
offence is compounded. This amicable settlement has arrived at between the
parties after passing of judgment dated 16.10.2024 by the learned appellate
Court. There is no doubt that the petitioner and the respondent have reached at
a settlement permissible by law. This Court has also satisfied itself regarding
the genuineness of the settlement. As such, in the considered opinion of this
Court, the conviction of the petitioner would not serve any purpose and is re-
quired to be set aside. In the light of the judicial precedents as referred to above
and the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the con-
sidered opinion that the offence deserves to be compounded in favour of the
petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the judgment of
conviction dated 30.07.2024 and order of quantum of sentence dated
31.07.2024 passed by the learned trial Magistrate as well as the judgment dated
16.10.2024 passed by the learned appellate Court are set aside. The offence for
which the petitioner was convicted stands compounded and the petitioner is ac-
quitted on account of such compounding. His personal/surety bonds be dis-
charged accordingly.
10. Since the main petition has been disposed of, pending application,
if any, is rendered infructuous.
01.03.2025 (MANISHA BATRA)
Parveen Sharma JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
