Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Kumar Aggarwal vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 6 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032103
CRR-934-2018 (O&M) and three other cases 1
251 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
1. CRR-934-2018 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 06.03.2025
RAJ KUMAR AGGARWAL ...Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ...Respondents
2. CRR-935-2018 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 06.03.2025
RAJ KUMAR AGGARWAL ...Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ...Respondents
3. CRR-946-2018 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 06.03.2025
RAJ KUMAR AGGARWAL ...Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ...Respondents
4. CRR-949-2018 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 06.03.2025
RAJ KUMAR AGGARWAL ...Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG Punjab.
Mr. Raghav Goel Chandiwala, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.
***
Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral)
1. All these four revision petitions are decided by this common order
as similar types of prayers has been made in all these petitions.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032103
2. These revision petitions have been preferred against the
judgment(s) dated 26.02.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Jalandhar, whereby the judgment(s) of conviction and order(s) on quantum of
sentence dated 01.05.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Jalandhar have been upheld, vide which the petitioner(s) has been convicted
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for one year and also imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each
in all the four petitions.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that
petitioner(s) was convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act
and awarded rigorous imprisonment for 01 year and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- was
also imposed by learned trial Court in each petition and the judgment(s) of
conviction and order(s) of sentence were upheld by learned lower Appellate
Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that offence under Section
138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is compoundable in nature and during the
pendency of present petition, the parties were relegated to Mediation and
Conciliation Centre of this Court and with the efforts of Mediator, a
settlement/compromise has been reduced into writing and as per the terms of the
settlement, entire amount has been paid to the respondent(s) No. 2.
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent(s) No. 2 submits that on
31.07.2023, the settlement/ agreement was signed by the parties and
respondent(s) No. 2 in all four cases has no objection for compounding the
offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
5. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the submissions put
forth by both sides and on careful perusal of the material on record, it transpires
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032103
that matter has been compromised between the parties. Hence, this Court is
inclined to accept the prayer made by the petitioner(s).
6. It is settled law that the proceedings initiated under Section 138 of
the NI Act are quasi-criminal in nature and the object and purpose of this enact-
ment is to provide a compensatory mechanism for expeditious recovery of
money as opposed to punishing the accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.
Vijayan Vs. Baby (2012) 1 SCC 260 has considered the said issue and come to
the conclusion that punishing the offender is secondary concern.
7. The amendment carried out in the year 2002 in the NI Act intended
to make the nature of offence under Section 138 of the NI Act as a civil wrong
while making it compoundable. A two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Meters and Instruments Private Limited and another Vs. Kanchan
Mehta (2018) 1 SCC 560, speaking through Justice A.K. Goel has held as un-
der:-
"7. This Court has noted that the object of the statute was to facilit-
ate smooth functioning of business transactions. The provision is
necessary as in many transactions' cheques were issued merely as
a device to defraud the creditors. Dishonour of cheque causes in-
calculable loss, injury and inconvenience to the Vide the Banking,
Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws
(Amendment) Act, 1988 payee and credibility of business transac-
tions suffers a setback. At the same time, it was also noted that
nature of offence under Section 138 primarily related to a civil
wrong and the 2002 amendment specifically made it compound-
able......
xxxx xxxx xxxx
18.2. The object of the provision being primarily compensatory,
punitive element being mainly with the object of enforcing the com-
pensatory element, compounding at the initial stage has to be en-
couraged but is not debarred at later stage subject to appropriate
compensation as may be found acceptable to the parties or the
court.
18.3. Though compounding requires consent of both parties, even
in absence of such consent, the court, in the interests of justice, on
being satisfied that the complainant has been duly compensated,
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032103
can in its discretion close the proceedings and discharge the ac-
cused."
8. Moreover, a two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
JIK Industries Limited and others Vs. Amar Lal V. Jumani and another
(2012) 3 SCC 255 has examined the issue whether for compounding of an of-
fence, consent of aggrieved party is required and speaking through Justice Asok
Kumar Ganguli, following was held:-
"82. A perusal of Section 320 makes it clear that the provisions
contained in Section 320 and the various sub-sections is a code by
itself relating to compounding of offence. It provides for the various
parameters and procedures and guidelines in the matter of com-
pounding. If this Court upholds the contention of the appellant that
as a result of incorporation of Section 147 in the NI Act, the entire
gamut of procedure of Section 320 of the Code are made inapplica-
ble to compounding of an offence under the NI Act, in that case the
compounding of offence under the NI Act will be left totally un-
guided or uncontrolled. Such an interpretation apart from being an
absurd or unreasonable one will also be contrary to the provisions
of Section 4(2) of the Code, which has been discussed above. There
is no other statutory procedure for compounding of offence under
the NI Act. Therefore, Section 147 of the NI Act must be reasonably
construed to mean that as a result of the said section the offences
under the NI Act are made compoundable, but the main principle of
such compounding, namely, the consent of the person aggrieved or
the person injured or the complainant cannot be wished away nor
can the same be substituted by virtue of Section 147 of the NI Act."
9. In view of the above discussion, the offence under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is compounded and judgment(s) of con-
viction and order(s) on quantum of sentence dated 01.05.2015 passed by learned
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar and further the judgment(s) dated
26.02.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar are hereby
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032103
quashed/set aside, qua the petitioner(s) in all four cases and the petitioner is ac-
quitted of the notice of accusation framed against him. His bail bonds and surety
bonds stand discharged.
10. All four petitions are disposed of in aforesaid terms.
11. Pending CRM(s), if any, are also disposed of accordingly.
12. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected
cases.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
06.03.2025
Ajay Goswami Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
