[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Satpal vs State Of Haryana And Another on 21 April, 2026

                     CRR-1034-2026 (O&M)                                                         -1-

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                              CHANDIGARH

                     128                                            CRR-1034-2026 (O&M)
                                                                    Date of decision : 21.04.2026

                     SATPAL
                                                                                ... PETITIONER
                                        Versus

                     STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
                                                                                .. RESPONDENTS

                     CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL

                     Present:-   Mr. Ajit Sihag, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                        ***

                     H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral)

CRM-17056-2026

1. This application has been filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act

seeking condonation of delay of 198 days in filing the revision petition.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and

delay of 198 days in filing the revision petition is hereby condoned.

CRR-1034-2026 (O&M)

1. This revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated

23.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani vide

which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction

and order of the sentence dated 05.10.2019 passed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate 1st Class, Bhiwani in CIS No.COMA-5578-2014 filed under Section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'NI

Act') has been dismissed.

CRR-1034-2026 (O&M) -2-

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has

been convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of

eleven months and to pay compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation in

terms of Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. to the complainant/respondent and in default

thereof, he has to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of six

months. It is submitted that the parties have amicable resolved their dispute and

a compromise (Annexure P-1) has been effected between them. It is further

submitted that the petitioner has paid the entire amount of the cheque in

question to the complainant/respondent No.2 and nothing is outstanding. He

also submits 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 NI Act can be compounded on account of the fact that

a mutual compromise has been effected between the parties.

3. Notice of motion.

4. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jangra, AAG,

Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1.

5. Mr. Ram Niwas Sharma, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf

of respondent No.2 and filed Vakalatnama on his behalf in Court, which is

taken on record. He affirmed the factum of compromise between the parties

and submits that nothing is due towards the petitioner. He also submits that

respondent No.2 has no objection if the petition is allowed and the petitioner is

acquitted of the charges framed against him.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully

gone through the material available on record.

CRR-1034-2026 (O&M) -3-

7. The allegations against the petitioner are that the cheque issued by

him for an amount of Rs.5 lakhs was dishonoured on account of insufficient

funds. The liability under the NI Act is primarily civil in nature. Now the

matter has been compromised and the petitioner has paid the entire amount to

the complainant/respondent no.2.

8. It is settled law that the proceedings initiated under the NI Act are

quasi-criminal in nature and the object and purpose of this enactment 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.

9. 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. Reference can be drawn from the

judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Meters and Instruments

Private Limited and another Vs. Kanchan Mehta (2018) 1 SCC 560, wherein

following observations have been made:-

"7. This Court has noted that the object of the statute was to facilitate 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 incalculable loss, injury and inconvenience to the vide the Banking, Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988 payee and credibility of business transactions suffers a setback. At the same time, it was also noted thatnature of offence under Section 138 primarily related to

CRR-1034-2026 (O&M) -4-

a civil wrong and the 2002 amendment specifically made it compoundable......

xxxx xxxx xxxx 18.2. The object of the provision being primarily compensatory, punitive element being mainly with the object of enforcing the compensatory element, compounding at the initial stage has to be encouraged 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, can in its discretion close the proceedings and discharge the accused."

10. 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

offence, 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 compounding. 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 inapplicable to compounding of an offence under the NI Act, in that case the compounding of offence under the NI Act will be left totally unguided or uncontrolled. Such an interpretation apart from being an

CRR-1034-2026 (O&M) -5-

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."

11. Offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act is a

compoundable offence. It appears that in the present case, the parties have

settled their dispute with regard to dishonour of cheque in question. In the

given circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be acquitted of the offence

punishable under Section 138 of the Act.

12. For the foregoing reasons, the revision petition is allowed and the

impugned judgments passed by the Courts below are set aside and the

petitioner is acquitted of the notice of accusation served upon him under

Section 138 of the Act.

13. The petitioner is set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any

other case.

14. Pending CRM(s), if any, are also disposed of accordingly.