Punjab-Haryana High Court
Girdhari Lal (Wrongly Named As Gulshan ... vs State Of Punjab And Another on 24 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039689
CRR-542-2025 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
116 CRR-542-2025
Date of decision: 24th March, 2025
Girdhari Lal (wrongly named as Gulshan Lal Dhawan in complaint)
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. Manish Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
Mr. G.S. Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.2.
***
MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):-
The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
against the judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence both
dated 07.06.2017, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Hoshiarpur in complaint bearing No. 581 dated 04.11.2014 titled as
Satish Kumar Malhotra Vs. Gulshan Lal Dhawan, filed under Section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (For short, 'NI Act'), whereby the
petitioner was held guilty for commission of offence punishable under the
aforesaid Section and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
two yeas and to pay compensation to the complainant/respondent No.2 to the
tune of cheque amount i.e. Rs. 7,50,000/- within a period of two months of
expiry of period prescribed for appeal. The petitioner has also laid challenge
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039689
CRR-542-2025 -
to the judgment dated 29.01.2025, passed by the Court of learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby the appeal of the petitioner had been
dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of
this petition are that the petitioner/accused was running a business of
goldsmith under the name and style of 'Gulshan Jewelers'. He had obtained
loan of Rs. 7,50,000/- from respondent No.2. The petitioner in order to
discharge his legally enforceable debt, had issued a cheque for Rs.
7,50,000/-. 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 on 30.09.2014 but
he failed to make payment within the time stipulated. Aggrieved with the
same, respondent No.2 filed the aforesaid complaint under Section 138 of NI
Act, in which, the petitioner held guilty and sentenced as mentioned above.
The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by learned Appellate
Court. Hence, the present revision petition. During the pendency of this
petition, the sentence of the petitioner was suspended vide order dated
28.02.2025 and since then, he is on bail.
3. It is submitted 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
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039689
CRR-542-2025 -
to compound the offence.
4. 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 compound 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.
5. Section 147 of NI 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 NI 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 NI Act can be recalled, in view of the specific
provisions contained under Section 147 of the Act, which provide for
compounding of offence allegedly committed under Section 138 of NI 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 NI Act to compound the
offence in those cases, where the accused already stands convicted.
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039689
CRR-542-2025 -
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.
6. In Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed babalal H. 2010(2) RCR
(Criminal) 851,, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had laid down several guide-
lines with regard to the proceedings conducted in connection with com-
plaints filed under Section 138 of NI Act. It was observed that the interest of
the complainant 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 aspect', courts should encourage com-
pounding of offences under the N.I. Act, if the parties are willing to do so.
7. In the instant case, as discussed above, the parties have settled
their dispute amicably, in pursuance of which, the entire disputed amount
has been paid by the petitioner to the respondent. Their statements recorded
on 06.03.2025 before the trial Magistrate have been received, wherein fac-
tum of compromise has been admitted. This fact is also affirmed by learned
counsel for respondent No.2/complainant. He has stated that the complainant
has no objection if the offence is compounded. This amicable settlement has
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039689
CRR-542-2025 -
arrived at between the parties after passing of judgment dated 29.01.2025 by
the learned Appellate Court. There is no doubt that the petitioner and the re-
spondent 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 required to be set aside. In the light of the judi-
cial precedents as referred to above and the attendant facts and circum-
stances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the offence
deserves to be compounded in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the
present petition is allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of
quantum of sentence both dated 07.06.2017 passed by the learned trial Mag-
istrate as well as the judgment dated 29.01.2025 passed by the learned
Appellate Court are set aside. The offence for which the petitioner was con-
victed stands compounded and the petitioner is acquitted on account of such
compounding. His personal/surety bonds be discharged accordingly.
8. Since the main petition has been disposed of, pending
application, if any, is rendered infructuous.
[MANISHA BATRA]
JUDGE
24th March, 2025
Parveen Sharma
1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No
2. Whether reportable : Yes / No
5 of 5
