AT CHANDIG F PUNJAB AND HARYANA NDIGARH 274 Subhash Sunil ***** ersus v. CRR No.24

Judgment

1. The present criminal revision vision petition has been filed seekin seeking setting asid g aside of the impugned order dated ated 2.12.2024, vide which, the learne learned Additional tional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad (f bad (for short ‘Sessions Judge’), e’), has dismissed t issed the appeal preferred by the petit e petitioner, as well as the judgment o ment of conviction/ iction/order of sentence dated 27/30.4 7/30.4.2018 passed by learned Judici Judicial Magistrate istrate Ist Class, Fatehabad (for short short ‘JMIC’), whereby the petition etitioner was convic convicted for commission of offence ffence punishable under Section 138 o 138 of Negotiable tiable Instruments Act, 1881 and wa nd was sentenced to undergo Rigorou igorous Imprisonme isonment for 01 year and to pay com y compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- to th to the complainan lainant.

Learned counsel for the petitio petitioner has submitted that during th ring the pendency o ency of proceedings, the petitioner tioner and the respondent/complaina plainant have amica amicably settled the matter. Vide ord de order dated 9.12.2024 passed by th by this ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.05.13 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No.2494 2494 of 2024 (O & M) -2- Court, the t, the matter was referred to DLSA, LSA, Fatehabad and the petitioner wa ner was directed to ted to deposit an amount of ₹75,000 75,000/-before the trial Court within hin 3 weeks. Re s. Report of Mediator dated 24.1.20

4.1.2025 has been received stating th ting that the matter matter has been compromised betwe between the parties vide agreemen eement/ settlement ment dated 22.1.2025 (copy whereof ereof appended at Flag ‘A’) before th fore the DLSA, Fate Fatehabad. Learned counsel for th for the petitioner, to prove his bonafid onafide in pursuanc rsuance of the aforesaid order, has a has also deposited Rs.75,000/- in th in the shape of an e of an FDR before the trial Court. urt. Learned counsel for the petition etitioner has further further submitted that since the par e parties have amicably settled the ed their dispute(s), te(s), the matter may be compounded unded and the petitioner be acquitted o uitted of the charge( harge(s) framed against him.

3. Learned counsel appearing fo ring for the respondent has ratified th fied the factum of s m of settlement/compromise having b ving been arrived at between the partie e parties and has fu has further vouched the genuineness neness of the compromise deed date d dated

22.1.2025 2025 stated to be arrived between t ween the parties. Accordingly, he ha he has iterated tha ed that the respondent/complainant ainant has no objection, in case, th ase, the offence is ce is permitted to be compounded an ded and the petitioner is ordered to b ed to be itted. acquitted.

4. I have heard learned counse ounsel for the rival parties and hav nd have perused the ed the available record.

5. It would be apposite to refer refer herein to a judgment passed b ssed by three Judge Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supre Supreme Court titled as Damodar dar S. Prabhu vs. u vs. Sayed Babalal H., AIR 2010(S 010(SC) 1907, relevant whereof read of reads thus: ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.05.13 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document “15. With regard to the progres cases, the learned Attorney Gen guidelines for a graded scheme of delay compounding of the offence. gression of litigation in cheque bounci General has urged this Court to fram e of imposing costs on parties who undu nce. It was submitted that the requirement uncing unduly ent of CRR No.2494 2494 of 2024 (O & M) -3- deposit of the costs will act as a d at present, free and easy compoun belated, gives an incentive to the dr cases for years. An application for not only results in the system bein deprived of effective justice. In vie - following guidelines be followed:- a deterrent for delayed composition, sin pounding of offences at any stage, howev he drawer of the cheque to delay settling t for compounding made after several yea being burdened but the complainant is al view of this submission, we direct that t , since owever ing the l years is also hat the THE GUIDELINES (i) In the circumstances, it i (a) That directions can be suitably modified making it an application for compou second hearing of the case compounding may be allow costs on the accused. , it is proposed as follows: n be given that the Writ of Summons ng it clear to the accused that he could ma mpounding of the offences at the first ase and that if such an application is mad allowed by the court without imposing a ons be d make irst or made, ng any (b) If the accused does not as aforesaid, then if an a before the Magistrate at a allowed subject to the cond to pay 10% of the cheque am compounding with the Lega as the Court deems fit. not make an application for compoundi an application for compounding is ma at a subsequent stage, compounding can condition that the accused will be requir ue amount to be deposited as a condition f Legal Services Authority, or such author unding can be quired ion for thority (c) Similarly, if the applica the Sessions Court or a H compounding may be allow pays 15% of the cheque am (d) Finally, if the applicatio Supreme Court, the figure amount. plication for compounding is made befo a High Court in revision or appeal, su allowed on the condition that the accus amount by way of costs. ication for compounding is made before t ure would increase to 20% of the cheq before l, such ccused ore the cheque Let it also be clarified that these guidelines should be deposi operating at the level of the Court For instance, in case of compound before a Magistrate's Court or a C deposited with the District Lega imposed in connection with compo deposited with the State Legal Se connection with composition be deposited with the National Legal S that any costs imposed in accordance w posited with the Legal Services Author ourt before which compounding takes plac unding during the pendency of proceedin r a Court of Sessions, such costs should Legal Services Authority. Likewise, co mposition before the High Court should l Services Authority and those imposed before the Supreme Court should gal Services Authority. e with thority place. edings uld be , costs uld be sed in uld be

17. We are also conscious of th the above quoted guidelines cou making and therefore an intrusion kept in mind that Section 147 of th how to proceed with the compound already explained that the scheme CrPC cannot be followed in the vacuum, we see no hurdle to the e have been designed to discourag composition of the offence in case graded scheme for imposing costs at an early stage of litigation. In th is spent on the trial of these cases a Court fee since the proceedings a Procedure, even though the impact of the view that the judicial endorsement could be seen as an act of judicial la sion into the legislative domain. It must of the Act does not carry any guidance ounding of offences under the Act. We ha eme contemplated under Section 320 of t the strict sense. In view of the legislati the endorsement of some suggestions whi urage litigants from unduly delaying t cases involving Section 138 of the Act. T osts is a means to encourage compoundi In the status quo, valuable time of the Cou ses and the parties are not liable to pay a gs are governed by the Code of Crimin pact of the offence is largely confined to t ent of l law- ust be nce on e have of the islative ng the ct. The unding Court ay any riminal to the ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.05.13 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No.2494 2494 of 2024 (O & M) -4- private parties. Even though the im is a matter of discretion, the sca interest of uniformity. The compete with regard to the specific facts recording reasons in writing for su of course contest the proceedings this Court has used its power to d the Constitution to frame guidelin there was a legislative vacuum.” e imposition of costs by the competent cou scale of costs has been suggested in t petent Court can of course reduce the co acts and circumstances of a case, wh or such variance. Bona fide litigants shou ings to their logical end. Even in the pa to do complete justice under Article 142 delines in relation to subject-matter whe t court in the e costs should e past, 142 of

5.1. Further the Hon’ble Supreme reme Court in a judgment titled as M M/s New Win in Export &Anr. vs. A. Subrama amaniam 2024 INSC 535 : 2024( 024(3) Law Heral erald (SC) 2098, relevant whereof re reof reads as under: “6. At this juncture, we woul regarding the principles of compo Act. It is to be remembered that offence which was made an offenc the reliability of these instrument cases involving dishonour of chequ serious concern for our judicia ‘compensatory aspect’ of remedy aspect’, courts should encourage Act if parties are willing to do Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663 Manoj Goel (2022) 11 SCC 705 Private Limited And Anr. v. Kan 18.2)” would also like to reiterate a few wor mpounding of offences in the context of that dishonour of cheques is a regulato ffence only in view of public interest so th ments can be ensured. A large number heques are pending before courts which is icial system. Keeping in mind that t edy shall have priority over the ‘puniti age compounding of offences under the o so. (See: Damodar S. Prabhu v. Say 63 (Para 18), Gimpex Private Limited 705 (Para 29), Meters And Instrumen Kanchan Mehta (2018) 1 SCC 560(Pa t of NI ulatory so that ber of ich is a at the unitive the NI Sayed ited v. uments (Para

5.2. More recently, the Hon’ble Su ’ble Supreme Court in a judgment tile ent tiled as Sanjabij jabij Tari vs. Kishore S. Borcar and r and another = 2025 INSC 1158, 8, has held as und as under: “38. Since a very large number of c and interest rates have fallen in the that it is time to 'revisit and tw aforesaid guidelines of compoundin r of cheque bouncing cases are still pendi n the last few years, this Court is of the vi d tweak the guidelines'. Accordingly, t ending e view ly, the ding are modified as under:- (a) If the accused pays the che evidence (namely defence eviden compounding of the offence witho accused. cheque amount before recording of h idence), then the Trial Court may allo ithout imposing any cost or penalty on t of his on the (b) If the accused makes the pay recording of his evidence but prio the Trial Court, the Magistrate ma payment of additional 5% of the c Authority or such other Authority a payment of the cheque amount post t prior to the pronouncement of judgment e may allow compounding of the offence the cheque amount with the Legal Servic ity as the Court deems fit. ost the ent by nce on ervices (c) Similarly, if the payment of che Court or a High Court in Revision the offence on the condition that amount by way of costs. cheque amount is made before the Sessio ision or Appeal, such Court may compou that the accused pays 7.5% of the cheq essions cheque ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.05.13 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No.2494 2494 of 2024 (O & M) -5- (d) Finally, if the cheque amount i would increase to 10% of the chequ unt is tendered before this Court, the figu heque amount.” figure

5.3. The statutory provision of Sec of Section 359 of BNSS, 2023 (Sectio (Section 320 of Cr.P of Cr.P.C., 1973) and Section 147 of N 47 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 188 ct, 1881 when exam examined alongwith Section 528 of B 8 of BNSS, 2023 in the guiding light o light of the judgme udgments of the Hon’ble Supreme reme Court in cases of Damodar dar S. Prabhu (su (supra), M/s New Win Export (s (supra) and Sanjabij Tari (supra (supra), lead to the to the unequivocal conclusion that th that the offence under Section 138 o 138 of Negotiable tiable Instruments Act, 1881 can b can be compounded at all stages o tages of litigation, in tion, including when the matter has rea has reached the High Court after havin r having been conclu conclusively dealt with by the Magis Magisterial as also the Sessions Cour s Court. In other wo her words, such an offence can be com e compromised/compounded even aft en after the petition etitioner-accused has been convicted b icted by the Court of learned Magistra agistrate and his app is appeal against the same has been d been dismissed by the learned Session essions Court.

5.4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court Court in the judgment of Damodar dar S. Prabhu (su (supra) has also enunciated tha d that, ordinarily, costs ought to b t to be imposed wh sed when the offence under Section 1 tion 138 of Negotiable Instruments A ents Act of 1881 is c 81 is compounded at a stage when sub en substantial proceedings have alread already been under undertaken by the Courts so as to d s to dissuade the unscrupulous litiga litigant from undu unduly delaying the compoundin unding of such offences. Howeve owever, discretion etion has been reserved in favou favour of the concerned Court ourt to reduce/waiv e/waive such costs, in case facts/ci acts/circumstances of a given case s case so warrant. Th ant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in c rt in case of Sanjabij Tari (supra) ha pra) has revisited th ited the guidelines, insofar as it relates relates to the quantum of imposition o sition of costs upon upon the accused, but has not mod t modified the leeway granted in th in the ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.05.13 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document judgment o ent of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra) w pra) which permits reduction or waiv r waiver CRR No.2494 2494 of 2024 (O & M) -6- of costs bas sts based on the factual milieu of a pa of a particular case albeit subject to th ct to the recording o ding of reasons for such variance. For ce. For the sake of clarity it is reiterate eiterated that liberty liberty reserved in favour of the courts courts to waive the imposition of cos of costs may be exe be exercised by any of the courts seiz rts seized of the matter—be it the Hig he High Court, the t, the Sessions Court or the magiste agisterial Court conducting trial. It i al. It is, however, im ver, imperative to bear in mind that d that discretion to waive the impositio position of costs is sts is not to be invoked as a matter of tter of ordinary course. The exercise o rcise of such discr discretion must be predicated upo d upon exceptional, compelling an ing and accentuatin tuating circumstances which, in t , in the considered opinion of th of the concerned erned Court seized of the matter, wa er, warrant deviation from the gener general rule of imp of imposition of cost. The Court, whi rt, while invoking such discretion, mu n, must record clea d clear, cogent and reasoned findings d dings delineating the special factors th tors that justify the y the waiver. This requirement is in t is in consonance with the legislativ gislative t and intent and the underlying purpose so se sought to be achieved by criminaliza inalization of the act of dishonor of c or of cheque, i.e. to inculcate financi inancial discipline a pline and uphold the credibility and san ments. and sanctity of negotiable instruments.

5.5. Still further, the inherent juris nt jurisdiction of the High Court und rt under Section 528 on 528 BNSS, 2023 is primarily aime y aimed at preventing abuse of judici judicial process an ss and securing the ends of justic justice. Thus, where the dispute spute is essentially ly personal in nature and a genuin genuine compromise has been reache reached, the High C igh Court may intervene to quash quash the conviction, recognizing th ing that continued nued proceedings would be non-pro productive and unjust in the give e given circumstanc mstances. The inherent powers of a H of a High Court are incidental reple l replete powers, in rs, in the absence of which, the Cour Court would be obliged to sit still an still and helplessly essly witness the process of law be law being abused for the purposes o oses of injustice. I tice. In other words; such power(s) wer(s) is intrinsic to the High Cour Court, ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.05.13 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No.2494 2494 of 2024 (O & M) -7- forming its ing its very life-blood, its very essence essence, its immanent attribute. Witho Without such power power(s), a High Court would retain retain form but lack substance. Thes . These powers of rs of a High Court hence deserve t serve to be construed with the wide widest possible am ble amplitude. These inherent powers owers are in consonance with the natu e nature of a High High Court which ought to be, and e, and has in fact been, invested wi ed with power(s) to r(s) to maintain its authority to preven prevent the process of law/Courts fro rts from being obstr obstructed or abused. It is a trite p trite posit of jurisprudence that thoug though laws attem attempt to deal with all cases that m that may arise, the infinite variety o riety of circumstanc mstances which shape events and the i d the imperfections of language make make it impossible ssible to lay down provisions capable pable of governing every case, which hich in fact arises. arises. A High Court which exists fo ists for the furtherance of justice in a ce in an indefatigab atigable manner, should therefore, h fore, have unfettered power(s) to de to deal with situati situations which, though not expressly pressly provided for by the law, need need to be dealt w ealt with, to prevent injustice or the r the abuse of the process of law an law and Courts. The ts. The juridical basis of these plenary lenary power(s) is the authority; in fa ; in fact the seminal eminal duty and responsibility of a Hig f a High Court; to uphold, to protect an tect and to fulfill th lfill the judicial function of administ ministering justice, in accordance wi ce with law, in a re in a regular, orderly and effective man ve manner. In other words; Section 52 tion 528 of BNSS, 2 SS, 2023 reflects peerless and inhere inherent powers, of a High Court whic rt which may be inv be invoked whenever it is just and eq and equitable to do so, in particular icular to ensure the re the observance of the due process rocess of law, to prevent vexation o ation or oppression, ession, to do justice nay substantial ju ntial justice between the parties and s and to secure the e the ends of justice. Therefore, the H , the High Court, in the exercise of i se of its inherent po ent power under section 528 BNSS, 2 SS, 2023 has the discretion to quash quash a conviction iction where the parties have reached ached an amicable settlement, provide rovided ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.05.13 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No.2494 2494 of 2024 (O & M) -8- that such such compromise neither impinge pinge upon the public interest no est nor undermine rmine the cause justice, as well as the s as the substantial justice.

6. Reverting to the facts of the c f the case in hand, it is not disputed b uted by the concern oncerned rival parties that an amicab micable settlement has been arrived rived at between th een them and, therefore, compoundin ounding of the offence and necessar ecessary further dire er directions have been sought from t from this Court. A perusal of th of the compromis ise/settlement dated 22.1.2025 stated to be arrived between th een the parties refle es reflects that the parties have sought sought to resolve their dispute(s) in to and bury th ury the hatchet. Consequently, in the in the considered opinion of this Cour s Court, the factual actual matrix of the case requires uires that the offence(s) ought to b t to be permitted to itted to be compounded and the petitio petitioner deserves to be acquitted.

6.1. Keeping in view the ent e entirety of the attending facts/ circumstanc mstances of the case, the petitioner ha oner having faced the wrath of crimin criminal litigation si ion since about the year 2018; this C this Court does not deem it appropria ropriate to saddle th ddle the petitioner with costs.

7. In view of the prevenient ratio t ratiocination, it is ordained thus: (i) The impugned judgment of co t of conviction/order of sentence date ce dated 27/30.4.2018 passed by learn learned JMIC, as also the impugne pugned order dated 2.12.20245 passe passed by learned Sessions Judge, a dge, are set-aside and the petitioner is ner is acquitted. (ii) The rival parties shall rema l remain bound by the terms of th of the settlement/compromise dated dated 22.1.2025 entered into betwee between the parties before the DLSA of non- DLSA, Fatehabad. In case of non compliance thereof, the aggri aggrieved party shall be at liberty berty to seek recall of this order, albeit lbeit upon showing sufficient cause. cause. It is clarified that in case non- -compliance is found to be show shown, the erring party may be sa be saddled with exemplary punitiv punitive measure(s). (iii) Disposed of. (iii) ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.05.13 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No.2494 2494 of 2024 (O & M) -9- (vi) No order as to costs. (vi) (vii) Pending application(s), if any, (vii) if any, shall also stands disposed of. (viii) It is common ground between (viii) tween the learned rival counsel that th that the amount of ₹75,000/- deposite posited in this Court in terms of ord of order dated 9.12.2024 earlier passed passed by this Court, be released to th d to the ication. petitioner on due identification ix) Ordered accordingly. (ix) (cid:1) (SUMEET GOEL GOEL) JUDGE 2026 12.5.2026 Ashwani (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:6)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:15)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:1) Whether reportable: (cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:18)(cid:4)(cid:7)(cid:14)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:1) Yes/No ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.05.13 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document