Jai Chand Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Since, the matter has been compromised, the learned counsel for the parties pray that the main case be taken up alongwith the application (CRM-28091-2025) which is listed for today itself.

¶18

JITESH LAL 2025.08.05 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

In view of the joint prayer made by the learned counsel for the parties, the main case is taken up for hearing today itself. CRR-1993-2010

¶20

The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 15.07.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.11.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Faridabad has been dismissed.

¶21

The brief facts of the case are that in discharge of his legal liability, the petitioner issued a cheque bearing No.1355457 dated 10.08.2001 for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- in favour of respondent No.2/complainant which came to be dishonoured. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner/accused came to be summoned under the provisions of the 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 vide order dated 16.11.2009 passed by the JMIC, Faridabad.

¶22

The evidence was led and ultimately, the petitioner/accused was held guilty and accordingly, convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 08 months. The petitioner/accused was also ordered to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant.

¶23

Aggrieved against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner/accused preferred an appeal before the

¶24

JITESH LAL 2025.08.05 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, which came to be dismissed on 15.07.2010.

¶26

Still aggrieved, the present revision petition has been preferred by the accused. During the pendency of the present criminal revision petition, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties on 02.06.2022 (Annexure A-1). It would be relevant to mention here that a combined reading of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alongwith Section 320 Cr.P.C. would establish that where a settlement has been effected, the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be compounded on account of the fact that a mutual compromise has been effected between the parties.

¶27

The learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant has accepted the factum of the compromise and has stated that he has no objection if the petitioner is acquitted of the charges framed against him. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶28

This Court in ‘Ramesh Chander Vs. State of Haryana and another, 2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 245’ held as under:-

¶29

“4. As per the provisions of Section 147 of the Act, the offence under Section 138 is compoundable. Section 147 reads as under:-

¶30

“Offence to be compoundable-

¶31

Notwithstanding anything contained in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973(2 of 1974), every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable”.

¶32

JITESH LAL 2025.08.05 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶33

5. The compounding of the offence under Section 138 can be done during the trial of the case as well as by the High Court or Court of Session while acting in the exercise of its power of revision under Section 401 Criminal Procedure Code Reference may be made to Section 320(6) Criminal Procedure Code in this regard.

¶34

6. Further, under Section 320(8) Criminal Procedure Code the composition of an offence shall have the effect of acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded.”

¶35

This Court in 'Vatsa Electronics Vs. Pala Ram & Anr. decided on 09.03.2022 in CRR-1585-2019' has also held that once a settlement is being effected, then in terms of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 320 Cr.P.C., the accused ought to be acquitted as the offence stands compounded.

¶36

The admitted position is that the matter stands settled and the compromise/settlement between the parties dated 02.06.2022 (Annexure A-1) is already on record.

¶37

In view of the above, since, the parties have voluntarily settled the disputes between themselves, it is a fit case for allowing them to compound the offence.

¶38

Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and subject to payment of Rs.15,000/- as costs to be deposited with Punjab and Haryana High Court Employees Welfare Association, Account no. 37167209613 IFSC Code:-SBIN0050306 State Bank of India, High

¶39

JITESH LAL 2025.08.05 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶40

Court Branch, Chandigarh, the judgment dated 15.07.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad as well as the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.11.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Faridabad are hereby set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶41

Since the main petition has been disposed of no order needs to be passed in the pending application(s), if any.

¶42

The petition stands disposed of.

¶43

(JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE

¶44

02.08.2025

¶45

JITESH

¶46

JITESH LAL 2025.08.05 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Jai Chand v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Chand v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amritpal Singh @ Amrit Vs State of Punjab

Gurmeet Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Neeraj Vs State of Haryana

Surender Kumar Vs Pawan Kumar

Gurleen Kaur and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Maya Devi Vs State of Punjab and Others