JULY 14, 2025 Sukhwinder Si der Singh … v. Ve M/s Savi Finan Finance Co. and another
Case Details
CRR No.1681 of 2 81 of 2025 IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AN B AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR NO.1681 DATE OF DEC .1681 OF 2025 (O&M) F DECISION: JULY 14, 2025 Sukhwinder Si der Singh ….Petitioner Versus Ve M/s Savi Finan Finance Co. and another ….Respondents CORAM : HO HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPIT APITA BANERJI and Mr. J. S. Bhandohal, Advocate and Present: Mr Ms Ms. Manveer Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioner. for ate for Mr. Sukhmeet Singh, Advocate for Mr Mr Mr. H. S. Sandhu, Advocate, For the respondents. For LAPITA BANE ANERJI, J. CRM NO.26343 6343 OF 2025 This is an application seeking con Thi g condonation of delay of 112 days in preferrin eferring the petition. For the reasons stated in the appl For e application, same is allowed and delay of 112 of 112 days in preferring the petition i tition is condoned. CRM NO.26342 6342 OF 2025 This is an application for compoun Thi mpounding the offence in view of the fact th act that the parties have amicabl micably settled their dispute. Since the prayer made in this appl Sin is application has direct bearing on the main rev ain revision petition, the application i ation is disposed of and let the main case, whic , which is also listed today, be taken u aken up. SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.18 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 1 of 6 CRR No.1681 of 2 81 of 2025 CRR NO.1681 O 681 OF 2025 The present revision petition has The on has been filed against the judgment of co of conviction dated September 22, r 22, 2017 passed by learned Judicial Magist Magistrate 1st Class, Phagwara in ra in complaint bearing CIS No.NACT-25- -2014 dated December 24, 2013 2013 “M/s Savi Finance Co. and another v er v. Sukhwinder Singh” filed un led under Section 138 of the Negotiable Inst e Instruments Act, 1881 (for short short “N.I.Act”), wherein the petitioner was h was held guilty for commission of o n of offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The
Facts
The petitioner has also challenged nged judgment dated December 21, 2024 passed passed by learned Additional Sessions essions Judge-II, Kapurthala, in CRA No.186 of 186 of 2017, whereby appeal of the p the petitioner was dismissed. 2. i) Brief facts of the case are narrated h Bri rrated hereinafter: The accused-petitioner The ok took loan of an amount of lo Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainants. In disch discharge of his legal liability towards the com he complainants, he issued cheque b eque bearing No.385935 dated 11.11.2013 draw 3 drawn on Capital Local Area Bank Bank, Phagwara, in favour of the complainant lainants and assured that the cheque w eque would be honoured as and when presented esented for encashment. The comp complainant No.1 is a sole proprietorship fi ship firm of the complainant No.2. ii) The complainants presented the ch The the cheque immediately but the same was disho dishonoured vide memo dated 12.1 d 12.11.2013 with the remarks “Funds Insuffic ufficient”. The complainants being being aggrieved, served a legal notice dated No November 14, 2013 through regis h registered post and requested the petitioner to ner to make payment of the stipulated pulated amount, within 15 days. Since the petitio petitioner did not make any payment w ment within the stipulated time, SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.18 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 2 of 6 CRR No.1681 of 2 81 of 2025 the complainant lainants filed the aforesaid complaint plaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 3. The petitioner was held guilty and The ty and convicted for the offence punishable unde e under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and ct and was sentenced as under: fence Offence under ction Section 8 138 I.Act N.I.Act Sentence Fine/ Com e/ Compensation of Rigorous imprisonment for six months Compens Cr.P.C of i.e Rs.5,0 mpensation u/s 357(3) .P.C of the cheque amount Rs.5,00,000/- 4. Aggrieved by the judgment of con Ag of conviction and the order of sentence, the ac the accused-petitioner preferred an ap an appeal before the Court of learned Additio dditional Sessions Judge-II, Kapurtha purthala. By an order/judgment dated December ember 21, 2024, the said appeal was d was dismissed. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment/o Bei ment/order passed in appeal by the Court below below, the present revision petition h tition has been preferred by the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel appearing on b Lea on behalf of the petitioner submits that a that an amicable settlement has be as been arrived between the petitioner and t and the proprietor (complainant No. nt No.2) of complainant No.1- finance Compan ompany. It is recorded in the said com id compromise entered on July 02, 2025 (Anne (Annexure P-1) that the petitioner ha ner had already paid a sum of Rs.3,10,000/- in cash on May 18, 2021 and a and a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- on 025. July 02, 2025. 7. Learned counsel further conten Lea contends that since nothing remained due an due and payable towards the complai mplaint in view of Section 147 of the N.I. Act, Act, the offence under Section 138 n 138 of the N.I. Act should be compounded. SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.18 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 3 of 6 CRR No.1681 of 2 81 of 2025 8. 9. Issue notice. Issu Learned counsel for the responde Lea pondents-complainants, who is present in Court Court, has affirmed the factum of rec of receipt of the entire disputed amount from th rom the petitioner and the factum of m of compromise between the parties. He subm e submits that he has no objection if th on if the offence is compounded in favour of the of the petitioner and the judgment o ent of conviction and order of sentence record recorded by the learned trial Court an urt and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court Court, are quashed and set-aside. 10. Section 147 of the N.I. Act make Sec t makes all offences under the Act, compounda
Legal Reasoning
poundable offences. It is well settled p ettled proposition of law that in view of the prov e provisions contained under this Sect is Section read with Section 359 of BNSS (Secti Section 320 of the Cr.P.C.), a com a compromise arrived inter se parties can be a n be accepted and the offence commi ommitted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act ca ct can be ordered to be compounde pounded even after conviction. Reference in th in this regard can be made to the ju judgment dated March 02, 2022 passed by sed by the High Court of Himachal P chal Pradesh in Criminal Misc. (main) Petition etition No.107 of 2022 under Sectio Section 482 of the Cr.P.C in “Hiranand Sha Shastri v. Ram Rattan Thakur and and another” wherein it was observed that th that the judgment of conviction recor recorded under Section 138 of the N.I. Act can ct can be recalled, in view of the spec he specific provisions contained under Section ction 147 of the Act, which provid provides for compounding of offence allegedl llegedly committed under Section 138 on 138 of the N.I. Act. Similar proposition of l n of law was laid down in the judgm judgment dated December 21, 2021 passed in sed in CRM-M-2499 of 2021 “Geeta eeta Devi v. Surinder Singh and another” w ” wherein it was observed by the y the High Court of Himachal SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.18 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 4 of 6 CRR No.1681 of 2 81 of 2025 Pradesh that the hat the Court has ample powers unde s under Section 147 of the N.I. Act to compoun mpound the offence in those cases w ases where the accused already stands convicte nvicted. Reference can also be mad e made to judgment passed in “Sube Singh an h and another v. State of Haryana ryana and another” 2013 (4) RCR (Criminal) inal) 102, wherein a Division Benc n Bench of this Court has held that even after after the conviction, if the parties arties have settled the dispute amicably and h and have decided to live in peace an ace and harmony, this Court in exercise of pow f powers under Section 482 of the C the Cr.P.C, can compound the offence. 11. In “Damodar S. Prabhu v. Saye In Sayed Babalal H.” 2010 (2) RCR (Criminal) inal) 851, the Hon’ble Supreme Cou e Court had laid down several guidelines with s with regard to the proceedings cond s conducted in connection with complaints filed ts filed under Section 138 of the N.I. I. Act. It was observed that the interest of t st of the complainant lied primarily arily in recovering the money rather than seei n seeing the drawer of the cheque in eque in jail with respect to the offence of disho f dishonor of the cheque and it is co t is compensatory aspect of the remedy which hich should be given priority over the ver the punitive aspect. In “Raj Reddy Kallen v len v. State of Haryana and anothe other”, (2024) 5 SCR 203, it was observed b rved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court ourt that keeping in mind that ‘compensatory atory aspect’ of remedy shall have p ave priority over the ‘punitive aspect’, courts s ourts should encourage compounding nding of offences under the N.I. Act, if the partie parties are willing to do so. 12. In the instant case, as discussed In ussed above, the parties have settled their disp eir dispute amicably, in pursuance of ce of which the entire disputed amount has bee as been paid by the petitioner to the r the respondents-complainants. SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.18 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 5 of 6 CRR No.1681 of 2 81 of 2025 This fact is aff is affirmed by learned counsel for el for the respondents. He has stated that the at the complainants have no obje objection if the offence is compounded. T ded. This amicable settlement has ar has arrived between the parties after passing of ing of the judgment by the learned Ap ed Appellate Court. There is no doubt that the p t the petitioner and the respondents hav nts have reached at a settlement permissible by l le by law. 13. In view of the above, since the In e the parties have voluntarily settled the dispu e dispute between themselves, it is a f t is a fit case for allowing them to compound th und the offence. Accordingly, the rev the revision petition is allowed, subject to paym payment of costs assessed at Rs.25,0 s.25,000/- to be deposited with PGI Poor Patie r Patient Welfare Fund. Subject to ect to payment of costs, the judgment passe passed by learned Additional Sessi Sessions Judge-II, Kapurthala dated Decembe cember 21, 2024 and judgment of nt of conviction and order of sentence passed passed by learned trial Court dated dated September 22, 2017, are hereby set-aside aside. The offence for which the h the petitioner was convicted stands compoun mpounded and the petitioner is acqu s acquitted on account of such ding. compounding. 14. Since the main petition is bein Sin s being disposed of, pending applications, if a ns, if any, have been rendered infructu fructuous. 15. Let a copy of the order be sent to t Let nt to the learned trial Court for necessary comp compliance and action. (LAPITA BANERJI) (LA JUDGE , 2025 JULY 14, 2025 Shalini Whether Speaki Whether reporta Speaking/reasoned: reportable: Yes/No Ye Yes/No Ye SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.18 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 6 of 6