Vikas Kumar Vs Pawan Kumar and Anr.

Th e petitioner has filed the instan t revision petition for setting a s ide the impugned j udgment of conviction dated 18.08.2017 and order of sentence dated 21.08.20 1 7, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Fateha b ad, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced t o undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 01 y ear for the offence punishable u nder Section 138 of the Negoti a ble Instruments A c t, 1881 (for short 'the Act') and to pay compensation to the respondent No. 2 to the tune of cheque amount i . e. Rs.90,000/- as also the judg m ent dated 04.07.20 2 6, passed by learned Addl. Ses s ions Judge, Fatehabad, vide w h ich the appeal of th e petitioner against the aforesai d judgment of conviction and o r der of sentence has been dismissed.

¶15

Th e brief facts of the case are t hat the accused had been ha v ing cordial relation s with the complainant and he r e quested to the complainant to l e nd the money of R s.1,00,000/- as he is in need of sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to fulfill his domestic need a nd the complainant paid a su m of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the acc u sed keeping in vie w the cordial relations and genui n e personal need of the accused a nd genuine person a l need of the accused and it wa s assured by the accused at that t i me TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.25 20:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CRM-11731-2026 in/and CRR-1410-2024 (O&M)

¶17

-2-

¶18

that he will rep a y the said amount to the com p lainant as soon as possible and the accused was un d er lawful liability to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The complai n ant demanded his a bove-mentioned amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the accused a nd after great effo r ts of the complainant, the accused agreed to repay the above- s aid amount of Rs. 1 ,00,000/- to the complainant. I n discharge of the above-said la w ful liability, the ac c used issued a cheque no. 712 4 65 dated 23.03.2016 amountin g to Rs. 1,00,000/- o f his account no. 30697741758 m aintained by him with State B a nk of India Branc h Mini Secretariat, Fatehabad i n the name of the complainant a nd assured to the complainant that on presenta t ion of cheque, the same will be honoured, but the accused was dishonest ri g ht from the beginning and f u lly knowing that t he cheque on presentation c a nnot be honoured as there w as insufficient fun d s in the account to honour the c heque. The complainant depos i ted the said chequ e no. 712465 dated 23.03.2016 in his account with State Ban k of India Branch M ini Secretariat, Fatehabad in or d er to collect the said amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- of s aid cheque and State Bank o f India Branch Mini Secreta r iat, Fatehabad retu r ned this cheque as unpaid to t he complainant with his mem o of dishonur dated 13.04.2016 on the ground th a t there is insufficient fund in the account of the a ccused with the remarks 'fund s insufficient' and thus said che q ue no. 712465 dat e d 23.03.2016 of accused Vikas K umar has been dishonoured. 3. It h as been further averred that a fter receipt of the said chequ e as unpaid, the co m plainant served a legal notice to the accused through regist e red post on 26.04. 2 016 with acknowledgment d u e through his counsel Sh. S u nil Kumar Dharnia, Advocate, Fatehabad, to the a c cused thereby calling upon to h im to make the pa y ment of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant within 15 days of the receipt of the n o tice and the notice has been duly served to the accused, but des p ite TRIPTI SAINIservice of legal notice, the accused has not made the payment of the che q ue 2026.03.25 20:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CRM-11731-2026 in/and CRR-1410-2024 (O&M)

¶20

-3-

¶21

amount and ev e n did not bother to give reply o f the legal notice. The accused has issued the cheq u e to the complainant knowingly that there is insufficient fun d in the account of t h e accused. Hence, the present complaint. 4. Th e petitioner was convicted a n d sentenced to undergo si m ple imprisonment f o r a period of 01 year for the of f ence punishable under Section 138 of the Negoti a ble Instruments Act, 1881 ( for short 'the Act') and to p ay compensation t o the respondent No.2 to the tun e of cheque amount i.e. Rs.90,0 0 0/by the learned Chief Judicial Magistarate, vi d e order dated 21.08.2017. Fee l ing aggrieved, the p resent petitioner has filed the a ppeal, which was dismissed by the learned Additio n al Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, v ide order dated 04.07.2024. Hence the present revi s ion petition has been filed.

¶22

Th e petitioner has also filed an application i.e. CRM-11731-2 0 26 under Section 147 of the Act read with Sectio n 528 of BNSS/482 Cr.P.C, see k ing permission fro m this Court to compound the offence and to acquit him of the charges under Section 138 of Negotiable Instru m ents Act. 6. Le a rned counsel for the petitioner averred that after dismissing of the appeal filed by the petitioner, both the partie s compromised the matter and the petitioner paid a n amount of Rs.60,000/- as full and final settlement of the disp u te. He further su b mits that the offence under Section 138 of the Negoti a ble Instruments Ac t is essentially a civil wrong gi v en the colour of criminal offence and once the di s pute has been amicably settled and the complainant has receiv e d a substantial am o unt in full and final settle m ent, the very foundation of the complaint ceas e s to exist. Learned counsel fo r the petitioner prays that both the aforesaid judg m ents passed by the Courts belo w be set aside and the petitione r be acquitted of the charge(s) levelled against her.

¶23

Notice of motion. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.25 20:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

CRM-11731-2026 in/and CRR-1410-2024 (O&M)

¶25

-4-

¶26

O n the asking of the Court, Mr . Sahil Chowdhary, AAG, Pu n jab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent - State and submits that this is a complaint case and he is not aware of any compromise effected between the parties.

¶27

No one has put in appearance on b e half of the complainant. 10. Le a rned counsel for the petitioner r elies upon the judgment in the c ase of ‘ Tilak Kataria vs. State of Haryana and another’, 2021 (3) RCR (Criminal) 404 , wherein, a fter considering various judgm e nts of the Hon’ble Apex Cour t , it has been held that when the complainant d oes not have any objection, the proceedings sh o uld come to an end. 11. Th e Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘ A.T. Sivaperumal vs. Mohammed Hyath (D) by Lrs’ 2017 (2) RCR (Criminal) 453 , decided on 27.03.2017, has h eld that once the se t tlement between the parties has been arrived at, the conviction can also be set as i de and the litigation too. Si m ilar view has been taken b y a Coordinate Be n ch of this Court in the case of Jagmohan Vs. Sandeep Aggarwal and another, 2021(4) RCR (Criminal) 86 .

¶28

Le a rned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respon d ent No.2, are ad-i d em that the matter stands co mp romised and the petition ma y be allowed and permission may be granted to th e parties to compound the offence under Section 138 of the Act in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supr e me Court in Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H, 2010 (2) RCR (Criminal) 851 and Sanjabij Tari versus Kishore S.Borcar, 2025 INSC 1158 , the impug n ed judgments and order passed by the learned tri a l Court and the learned Appel l ate Court may be s e t aside and the petitioner be ac q uitted of the charge(s). 13. I h a ve heard learned counsel for th e parties and perused the record.

¶29

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.25 20:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

CRM-11731-2026 in/and CRR-1410-2024 (O&M)

¶31

-5-

¶32

In t he present case, the cheque(s) amount is Rs.90,000/-. In vie w of the law laid d o wn in Sanjabij Tari’s case (s up ra) , compounding of the pre s ent offence can be allowed, provided the petitione r -accused pays 7.5% of the che q ue amount by way of costs. On calculation, 7.5% of the cheque amount comes t o be Rs.6,750/-. As noticed above, the parties ha v e settled the dispute by wa y of compromise. CRM-11731-2026 is allowed a n d this Court grants permissio n to compound the o ffence punishable under section 138 of the Act 15. In view of the above, the impug n ed judgment of conviction d a ted 18.08.2017 an d order of sentence dated 21.08.2017 passed by the learned C h ief Judicial Magis t rate Fatehabad and the judg m ent dated 04.07.2024 passed by learned Addl. S essions Judge, Fatehabad, ar e set aside. The complaint u n der Section 138 of t he Act stands dismissed and t h e petitioner stands acquitted of the charge(s), subj e ct to her depositing the costs o f Rs.6.750/- with the Punjab S t ate Legal Services Authority, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supr e me Court in Sanjabij Tari’s case (supra) , within 15 days from the date of receipt o f the certified copy o f this order.

¶33

Th e present revision petition is all o wed in the aforementioned ter m s. 17. Re g istry is directed to ensure t h e compliance of this order a s to depositing of c o sts by the petitioner. 18. Al l pending miscellaneous applica t ion(s), if any, stands disposed o f .

¶34

March 25, 2026 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE Whethe r speaking/non-speaking : Spea k ing Whethe r reportable : Yes/ N o

¶35

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.25 20:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Vikas Kumar v. Pawan Kumar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Kumar v. Pawan Kumar and 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

Prabhjeet Kaur Bassan Vs State of Punjab and Others

Sant Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Mujjamil Vs State of Haryana

Abdur Rab Khan @ Saim Vs State of Haryana

Sukhmandar Singh Alias Shinda and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Sarwan Singh @ Samma Vs State of Punjab