Punjab-Haryana High Court
Falak Singh Alias Falak vs State Of Punjab And Another on 6 November, 2025
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
CRR-2128-2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
269 CRR-2128-2024
Date of decision: 06.11.2025
FALAK SINGH ALIAS FALAK .... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. R.K. Kachura, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Ms. Navreet Kaur Barnala, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Gurpreet Singh Khosa, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)
The present revision petition has been filed against the
judgment dated 16.10.2024 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ferozepur vide
which the appeal preferred by the accused-petitioner against the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.08.2022 passed
by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Guruharsahai has been
dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the accused-petitioner
had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,95,960/- from the complainant/respondent
No.2 with an assurance to return the same in near future. Thereafter he
failed to repay the loan amount and upto 29.09.2017, a total sum of Rs.
2,60,718/- including the principal amount and interest amount of
KUSUM Rs.64,750/- was due against the accused-petitioner. In order to discharge
his liability, the accused-petitioner issued a cheque bearing No.913461
dated 23.02.2018 for a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- drawn at Punjab & Sind
Bank, in favour of the complainant-respondent No.2. On presentation of
the aforesaid cheque by the complainant with his banker, namely, Punjab
& Sind Bank, Gurharsahai, the same was not encashed and was
dishonoured with the remarks 'Refer to Drawer' vide a return memo
dated 12.03.2018. The accused-petitioner was served with a legal notice
dated 07.04.2018 for making the payment within 15 days of receipt of the
said notice but the accused-petitioner failed to do so, leading to initiation
of proceedings under Section 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881.
3. In the complaint under Section 138/142 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 filed by the complainant/respondent No.2, the
accused/petitioner was summoned to face trial under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act. The evidence was led and ultimately, the
accused/petitioner was held guilty and accordingly, convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year along with
compensation equivalent to the cheque amount.
4. Aggrieved against the said judgment of conviction and order
of sentence, the accused/petitioner preferred an appeal before the
Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur which came to be dismissed vide a
judgment dated 16.10.2024.
5. Still aggrieved, the present revision petition has been
preferred by the accused-petitioner.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that during
the pendency of the present petition, a compromise has been effected
between the parties. A perusal of the order dated 10.12.2025 would reveal
that as agreed, a cheque for a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- has been handed over
to the learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 as full and
final payment. Thus, nothing remains due towards the complainant-
respondent No.2. He further contends that in view of Section 147 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 320 Cr.P.C. 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.
7. The learned counsel for the State-respondent No.1 and the
counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 contend that as the matter
has been settled between the parties, they have no objection if the prayer
of the learned counsel for accused-petitioner for compounding the
offence under Section 138 N.I. Act is allowed and the petitioner is
acquitted of the charges framed against him.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
9. This Hon'ble 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 compoundableNotwithstanding 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."
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and subject to
payment of Rs.25,000/- as costs to be deposited with Punjab State Legal
Services Authority-Disaster Relief Fund, Account No.44426937384,
IFSC Code:SBIN0014656, State Bank of India, Sector 68, SAS Nagar,
the judgment dated 16.10.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Ferozepur as well as the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 02.08.2022 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Gurharsahai, are hereby set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the
charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
13. 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
06.11.2025
Kusum
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
