Allowed

Jagsir Singh v. Kanwaljit Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Apr 2025CRR/248/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court revision petition sought to quash conviction and sentence for cheque dishonour under Section 138 NI Act. The petitioner secured a compromise and paid the full compensation before the court. The court held that with consent and full compensation, the proceedings can be closed, disposed

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed; offence under Section 138 NI Act compounded; conviction and sentence set aside; petitioner acquitted and released on bail.

Jagsir Singh Vs Kanwaljit Singh — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

¶1

118 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM-14636-2025 in/and CRR-248-2025 (O & M) Date of decision: 21.04.2025

JAGSIR SINGH

...PETITIONER

V/S

KANWALJIT SINGH

...RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. S.P. Singh, Advocate for the p e titioner. Mr. G.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the r e spondent.

¶9

¶10

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

¶11

CRM-14636-2025

¶12

Th i s application has been filed u n der Section 528 BNSS, 2023 seeking pre-ponement of the main case from 23 . 04.2025 to an earlier date.

¶13

No t ice in the application. Mr. G.S. Sidhu, Advocate has p u t in appearance on behalf of respondent/non - applicant and filed his memo o f appearance. He submits that he has no objec t ion in case, the main case is pre p oned. Wi t h the consent of both the partie s , main case is preponed and is

¶14

taken on board t oday itself.

¶15

CRM-14637-2025

¶16

Th i s is an application filed under S ection 528 of BNSS, 2023 for placing on reco r d the compromise dated 24.03. 2 025 as Annexure A-1. Fo r the reasons mentioned in the a p plication, the same is allowed.

¶17

MANISHA 2025.04.22 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶18

CRM-14636-2025 in/and CRR-248-2025 (O & M)

¶19

¶20

Co m promise dated 24.03.2025 is taken on record as Annexure

¶21

A-1.

¶22

MAIN CASE

¶23

Th e present revision petition ha s been filed for setting aside judgment and o rder of sentence dated 14.1 2 .2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magist r ate 1st Class, Moga and judgm e nt dated 18.10.2023 passed by learned Additio n al Sessions Judge, Moga.

¶24

Br i ef facts of the present case are t hat the petitioner borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the respondent. I n discharge of the said liability, he issued a ch e que bearing No.046662 dated 03.07.2018 for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- d r awn on Punjab National Bank, Branch Moga Mehla Singh, in favour of the complainant. When the said c heque was presented for its encashment, th e same was dishonoured vide return memo dated 05.07.2018 with remarks “ D rawer Signature Differs”. The r eafter, the complainant served a legal notice d a ted 20.07.2018 upon the petiti o ner, however, he did not pay the amount. He n ce, the complaint.

¶25

Af t er appreciating the evidence a v ailable on record, the learned trial Court con v icted and sentenced the petiti o ner vide judgment and order dated 14.12.20 2 2. Aggrieved by the same, t he petitioner approached the learned lower A ppellate Court, but his appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 18.10.20 2 3. Hence, the petitioner has ap p roached this Court by way of filing present p e tition.

¶26

Le a rned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was convicted und e r Section 138 of NI Act and was awarded rigorous imprisonment f o r a period of 02 years and was d irected to pay a compensation

¶27

MANISHA 2025.04.22 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶28

¶29

CRM-14636-2025 in/and CRR-248-2025 (O & M)

¶30

of Rs.2,50,000 / -, in default of payment of c ompensation he was further directed to und e rgo rigorous imprisonment for 0 3 months.

¶31

Le a rned counsel further submits th e petitioner has been convicted for commission of offence under Section 138 o f Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which i s compoundable in nature. F u rthermore, he refers to the compromise de e d dated 24.03.2025 (Annexur e A-1) and submits that during the pendency o f the present revision petition, a n amicable settlement has taken place. As per c ompromise, entire outstanding amount has been paid to the respondent.

¶32

Le a rned counsel for the respondent affirms to the factum of compromise an d submits that the respondent has received the entire amount in terms of the c o mpromise and has no objecti o n in case, the offence under Section 138 of N I Act be compounded and th e petitioner be acquitted of the notice of accus a tion framed against him.

¶33

I h ave heard learned counsel fo r the parties and perused the paper-book wit h their able assistance.

¶34

It is settled law that the proceedi n gs initiated under Section 138 of the NI Act a r e quasi-criminal in nature and the object and purpose of this enactment is to provide a compensatory mech a nism for expeditious recovery of money as o p posed to punishing the accused. A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supre m e Court in R. Vijayan Vs. Baby (2012) 1 SCC 260 has considered the said issue and come to the c onclusion that punishing the offender is seco n dary concern.

¶35

Th e amendment carried out in t h e year 2002 in the NI Act intended to ma k e the nature of offence under S ection 138 of the NI Act as a

¶36

MANISHA 2025.04.22 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶37

CRM-14636-2025 in/and 4 CRR-248-2025 (O & M)

¶38

civil wrong w h ile making it compoundable. A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supre m e Court in Meters and Instruments Private Limited and another Vs. Kanchan Mehta (2018) 1 SCC 560 , speaking through Justice A.K. Goel has h eld as under:-

¶39

“ 7. This C ourt has noted that the object of the statute was to facilitate smooth f u nctioning of business transacti o ns. The provision is necessary as in ma n y transactions’ cheques were issued merely as a device to defraud t h e creditors. Dishonour of ch e que causes incalculable loss, injury and inconvenience to the Vide t h e Banking, Public Financial Institutio n s and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988 payee an d credibility of business transa c tions suffers a setback. At the same tim e , it was also noted that natur e of offence under Section 138 primarily related to a civil wrong and th e 2002 amendment specifically made it c o mpoundable…... xxxx xxxx xxx x

¶40

18.2. The object of the provision being pr i marily compensatory, punitive element b eing mainly with the object of enforcing the compensatory element, c ompounding at the initial sta g e has to be encouraged but is not deba r red at later stage subject to ap p ropriate compensation as may be found a cceptable to the parties or the c ourt. 18.3. Th o ugh compounding requires co n sent of both parties, even in absence o f such consent, the court, in the interests of justice, on being satisfied t hat the complainant has been duly compensated, can in its discretio n close the proceedings and disc h arge the accused.”

¶41

A two Judge Bench of the Ho n ’ble Supreme Court in JIK Industries Limited and others Vs. Amar Lal V. Jumani and another (2012) 3 SCC 255 has e xamined the issue whether fo r compounding of an offence, consent of agg r ieved party is required and s p eaking through Justice Asok Kumar Ganguli , following was held:-

¶42

“ 82. A p erusal of Section 320 makes it clear that the provisions containe d in Section 320 and the various sub-sections is a code by itself relating to compounding of offence. It provides for the various paramete r s and procedures and g u idelines in the matter of compoun d ing. If this Court upholds the c ontention of the appellant that

¶43

MANISHA 2025.04.22 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶44

CRM-14636-2025 in/and CRR-248-2025 (O & M)

¶45

¶46

as a res u lt of incorporation of Section 147 in the NI Act, the entire gamut of p rocedure of Section 320 of the Code are made inapplicable to compoun d ing of an offence under th e NI Act, in that case the compoun d ing of offence under the NI Act will be left totally unguided or uncontro l led. Such an interpretation a p art from being an absurd or unreason a ble one will also be contrary t o the provisions of Section 4(2) of the C ode, which has been discuss e d above. There is no other statutory procedure for compounding o f offence under the NI Act. Therefor e , Section 147 of the NI Act m u st be reasonably construed to mean tha t as a result of the said section the offences under the NI Act are made compoundable, but the main p r inciple of such compounding, namely, t h e consent of the person aggrie v ed or the person injured or the complain a nt cannot be wished away nor can the same be substituted by virtue of S ection 147 of the NI Act.”

¶47

Co n sequently, in view of the above discussion and the compromise, t h e present petition is allowed a nd consequently, the offence under Section 138 of NI Act is compounded a n d the judgment of conviction and order of s entence dated 14.12.2022 pas s ed against the petitioner by learned Judicia l Magistrate Ist Class, Moga a s well as impugned judgment dated 18.10.20 2 3 passed by learned Additio n al Sessions Judge, Moga are hereby set asid e along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. The petitioner is ac q uitted of the notice of accusat i on issued against him and his bail/surety bon d s stand discharged. 12. Th e jail authorities are direct e d to release the petitioner immediately, if n ot required in any other case.

¶48

April 21, 2025 manisha	(H ARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE
(i)	Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
(ii)	Whether reportable Yes/No

¶49

MANISHA 2025.04.22 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

Jagsir Singh v. Kanwaljit Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagsir Singh v. Kanwaljit Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ritesh and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others

Amninder Singh @ Hani Vs State of Punjab

Neha and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others

Karamjit Vs State of Haryana

Ramesh Vs State of Haryana

Sanju Devi Vs State of Haryana