PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH 244 Gursewak Singh Gursewak Singh v. Rajinder Singh Rajinder Singh CRR-2408-2025 & Anr.

Present : Mr. Judgepreet Singh Warring ***** , Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Judgepreet Singh Warring, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Yagsimant Attri, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. Yagsimant Attri, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. Yagsimant Attri, Advocate for respondent No.1 AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) *****

The challenge in the present criminal revision is to the order dated The challenge in the present criminal revision is to the order dated The challenge in the present criminal revision is to the order dated The challenge in the present criminal revision is to the order dated

21.08.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, dismissing the 21.08.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, dismissing the 21.08.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, dismissing the 21.08.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated appeal preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated appeal preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated appeal preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated SDJM, vide which the petitioner was convicted 06.06.2022 passed by learned SDJM, vide which the petitioner was convicted SDJM, vide which the petitioner was convicted 06.06.2022 passed by learned and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the Act’) and to pay 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the Act’) and to pay 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the Act’) and to pay 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the Act’) and to pay compensation. compensation.

mplaint filed under Section The facts relevant as narrated in the complaint filed under Section The facts relevant as narrated in the co The facts relevant as narrated in the co 138 of the NI Act are that the complainant had sold a swift car to the accused- 138 of the NI Act are that the complainant had sold a swift car to the accused 138 of the NI Act are that the complainant had sold a swift car to the accused 138 of the NI Act are that the complainant had sold a swift car to the accused on 17.11.2018 and in discharge of his petitioner for an amount of Rs.2,60,000/- on 17.11.2018 and in discharge of his on 17.11.2018 and in discharge of his petitioner for an amount of Rs.2,60,000/ ng to liability issued a cheque bearing No.000001 dated 12.03.2019, amounting to liability issued a cheque bearing No.000001 dated 12.03.2019, amounti liability issued a cheque bearing No.000001 dated 12.03.2019, amounti Rs.2,60,000/- , in favour of the complainant.

Rajinder Singh examined as In order to prove its case, complainant-Rajinder Singh examined as In order to prove its case, complainant In order to prove its case, complainant CW 1, Ranjit Singh as CW2, Sukhdev Singh as CW3 and also led documentary CW 1, Ranjit Singh as CW2, Sukhdev Singh as CW3 and also led documentary CW 1, Ranjit Singh as CW2, Sukhdev Singh as CW3 and also led documentary CW 1, Ranjit Singh as CW2, Sukhdev Singh as CW3 and also led documentary oner under evidence. On closure of its evidence, statement of accused-petitioner under evidence. On closure of its evidence, statement of accused evidence. On closure of its evidence, statement of accused Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, he denied all the allegations raised against Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, he denied all the allegations raised against Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, he denied all the allegations raised against Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, he denied all the allegations raised against him and pleaded innocence. However, he did not produce any evidence in his him and pleaded innocence. However, he did not produce any evidence in his him and pleaded innocence. However, he did not produce any evidence in his him and pleaded innocence. However, he did not produce any evidence in his defence.

After scrutinizing the evidence led by the parties, the trial Court After scrutinizing the evidence led by the parties, the trial Court After scrutinizing the evidence led by the parties, the trial Court After scrutinizing the evidence led by the parties, the trial Court the conclusion that the complainant has successfully proved his case came to the conclusion that the complainant has successfully proved his case the conclusion that the complainant has successfully proved his case the conclusion that the complainant has successfully proved his case accused, and convicted and sentenced him, to undergo against the petitioner-accused, and convicted and sentenced him, to undergo accused, and convicted and sentenced him, to undergo against the petitioner simple imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 138 NI Act and to simple imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 138 NI Act and to simple imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 138 NI Act and to simple imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 138 NI Act and to s compensation to the complainant. pay double of the cheque amount as compensation to the complainant. s compensation to the complainant. pay double of the cheque amount a petitioner filed appeal, which was dismissed by learned Aggrieved convict-petitioner filed appeal, which was dismissed by learned petitioner filed appeal, which was dismissed by learned Aggrieved convict Additional Sessions Judge, Budhlada, vide Additional Sessions Judge, Budhlada, vide Additional Sessions Judge, Budhlada, vide Additional Sessions Judge, Budhlada, vide impugned impugned impugned impugned judgment dated judgment dated judgment dated judgment dated

21.08.2025.

Hence, the present revision petition. Hence, the present revision petition. Hence, the present revision petition. e very outset submits that in view of the Learned counsel at the very outset submits that in view of the e very outset submits that in view of the Learned counsel at th compromise dated 09.02.2026, Annexure A- compromise dated 09.02.2026, Annexure A 1 having been arrived at between -1 having been arrived at between 2025 has also been filed under Section the parties, based on which CRM-48856-2025 has also been filed under Section 2025 has also been filed under Section the parties, based on which CRM per the 359 read with Section 528 of BNS for compounding the offence. As per the 359 read with Section 528 of BNS for compounding the offence. As 359 read with Section 528 of BNS for compounding the offence. As settlement, the parties do not wish to pursue with the matter. He prays that the settlement, the parties do not wish to pursue with the matter. He prays that the settlement, the parties do not wish to pursue with the matter. He prays that the settlement, the parties do not wish to pursue with the matter. He prays that the PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.02.13 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRR-2408-2025 2025(O&M) 3 fee with regard to the same be waived off, in view of the poor financial fee with regard to the same be waived off, in view of the poor financial fee with regard to the same be waived off, in view of the poor financial fee with regard to the same be waived off, in view of the poor financial condition of the petitioner. He has with great difficulty, managed to collect the condition of the petitioner. He has with great difficulty, managed to collect the condition of the petitioner. He has with great difficulty, managed to collect the condition of the petitioner. He has with great difficulty, managed to collect the ettled the dispute as he wanted to put an end to the same, six years money and settled the dispute as he wanted to put an end to the same, six years ettled the dispute as he wanted to put an end to the same, six years ettled the dispute as he wanted to put an end to the same, six years having gone by. having gone by.

respondent No.2 admits the Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 admits the Learned counsel for the complainant Learned counsel for the complainant factum of compromise and states that as per the settlement, the complainant has factum of compromise and states that as per the settlement, the complainant has factum of compromise and states that as per the settlement, the complainant has factum of compromise and states that as per the settlement, the complainant has received 4,50,000/- and the remaining Rs.80,000/ received 4,50,000/ will be paid after 6 months. the remaining Rs.80,000/- will be paid after 6 months. Thus, he, on instructions, submits that there is no objection, if the prayer made Thus, he, on instructions, submits that there is no objection, if the prayer made Thus, he, on instructions, submits that there is no objection, if the prayer made Thus, he, on instructions, submits that there is no objection, if the prayer made by the petitioner is accepted. by the petitioner is accepted.

It is apposite to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble The Supreme It is apposite to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble The Supreme It is apposite to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble The Supreme It is apposite to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble The Supreme Court in B.V.Seshaia B.V.Seshaiah vs. The State of Telangana and another 2023 Live h vs. The State of Telangana and another 2023 Live Law (SC) 75, wherein it was held thus: Law (SC) 75, wherein it was held thus: “10. In the case of M/S Meters and Instruments Private “10. In the case of M/S Meters and Instruments Private “10. In the case of M/S Meters and Instruments Private Limited & Anr. Vs Kanchan Mehta1,this court held that the Limited & Anr. Vs Kanchan Mehta1,this court held that the Limited & Anr. Vs Kanchan Mehta1,this court held that the nature of offence under section 138 of the N.I Act is nature of offence under section 138 of the N.I Act is nature of offence under section 138 of the N.I Act is primarily related to a civil wrong and has been specifically primarily related to a civil wrong and has been specifically primarily related to a civil wrong and has been specifically made a compoundable offence.

This is a very clear case of the parties entering into an 11. This is a very clear case of the parties entering into an 11. This is a very clear case of the parties entering into an agreement and compounding the offence to save themselves agreement and compounding the offence to save themselves agreement and compounding the offence to save themselves from the process of litigation. When such a step has been from the process of litigation. When such a step has been from the process of litigation. When such a step has been taken by the parties, and the law very cl early allows them to taken by the parties, and the law very clearly allows them to do the same, the High Court then cannot override such do the same, the High Court then cannot override such do the same, the High Court then cannot override such compounding and impose its will.” compounding and impose its will.” PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.02.13 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRR-2408-2025 2025(O&M) 4

Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of K.Subramanian vs. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of K.Subramanian vs.