[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dharampal vs State Of Haryana And Another on 24 April, 2026
In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana
At Chandigarh
255 CRR-1928-2025 (O&M)
Date of Decision:-24.04.2026
Dharampal
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & Anr.
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Present:- Ms. Amandeep Kaur and Mr. Narinder S. Lucky, Advocates
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vishal Singh, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate for the respondent No.2.
*****
SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.(Oral)
CRM-47823-2025 & CRR-1928-2025
By virtue of present revision petition, the petitioner - Dharampal is assailing
the judgment dated 17.05.2025, passed by the Court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge Fatehabad, hereinafter being referred to as
'Appellate Court' only. Vide abovementioned judgment, the appeal filed by
the petitioner, against the judgment of conviction dated 20.08.2018 and order
of sentence dated 23.08.2018, recorded by the Court of learned Additional
CRR-1928-2025 (O&M) (2)
Chief Judicial Magistrate Fatehabad, hereinafter being referred to as 'trial
Court' only, has been dismissed.
2. Vide abovementioned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the
learned trial Court had convicted the petitioner for the commission of offence
punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881,
hereinafter being referred to as 'NI Act' only, and sentenced him to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay compensation of
Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant/respondent No.2, hereinafter being referred
to as 'respondent No.2' only.
3. During the course of pendency of the instant revision petition, an application,
bearing CRM-47823-2025, has been moved by the petitioner for the
compounding of offence on the ground that the parties have amicably
resolved their issues, and that the matter has been fully compromised between
them. Compromise deed has been filed by the learned counsel for the
petitioner. The same be taken on record.
4 Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate has filed Power of Attorney on behalf of the
respondent No.2. The same be taken on record. The respondent No.2, who
was complainant before the learned trial Court, has endorsed the factum of
compromise, and expressed that he has no objection if the impugned
judgments are set aside.
5. As per compromise, the respondent No.2 has stated that he has entered into
compromise with the petitioner and in view of abovesaid compromise, he has
no objection if the offence under Section 138 of NI Act is compounded and
the petitioner is acquitted of the charges, by accepting the present revision
CRR-1928-2025 (O&M) (3)
petition. It has further been stated by the respondent No.2 that he has entered
into compromise without any pressure or coercion, and that the compromise
is genuine and valid.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner and
respondent No.2 have arrived at a compromise. As per learned counsel for the
petitioner, since the complainant has no objection in compounding the
offence, by allowing the present petition, the petitioner may be acquitted of
the abovementioned charges.
7. The record has been perused carefully.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Gian Chand Garg v.
Harpal Singh and Another' (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal)
No. 8050 of 2025) decided on 11.08.2025, has observed that it is very clear
that although dishonour of cheque entails criminal consequence, the
legislature by virtue of section 147 of the NI Act has made it compoundable
notwithstanding the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and
the same can be compounded at any stage of the proceedings especially when
the parties have themselves arrived at a voluntary compromise.
9. In another case, i.e. in the case of 'B.V. Seshaiah v. State of Telangana &
Anr.' (2023) SCC OnLine SC 96, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has
observed that when parties enter into an agreement and compound the
offence, they do so to save themselves from the process of litigation and
when such a step is taken by the parties, the law very well allows them to do
so. Hence, the Courts cannot override such compounding and impose its will.
CRR-1928-2025 (O&M) (4)
10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that the
complainant and the petitioners have amicably resolved the matter, and that
the complainant/respondent No.2 has no objection in case the present revision
petition is accepted, the instant revision petition deserves to be allowed, and
the offence is to be compounded.
11. Consequently, by accepting the application for compounding of offence, the
instant Revision Petition is hereby allowed and the judgment of conviction
dated 20.08.2018 and order of sentence dated 23.08.2018, passed by the
learned trial Court, as affirmed by the learned Appellate Court vide judgment
dated 17.05.2025, are hereby set aside. The accused/petitioner is acquitted of
the charge framed against him. His bail bonds are hereby discharged.
12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of,
accordingly.
24.04.2026 ( Surya Partap Singh )
Gaurav Thakur Judge
Whether speaking /reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable Yes / No
