Prem Chand Vs State of Haryana and Another

The instant revision petition has been filed assailing judgment dated 16.04.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed wherein the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.11.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ambala Cantt. were challenged.

¶16

Vide judgment dated 22.11.2006 the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') and to pay compensation amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to complainant as also the judgment dated 16.04.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala whereby the appeal of the petitioner against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence

¶17

VANITA 2026.07.15 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment

¶18

CRR-920-2008

¶19

2

¶20

dated 22.11.2006 has been dismissed.

¶21

The facts in brief are that the petitioner had taken a loan from the complainant/respondent No.2 to the tune of Rs.95,000/- and had executed a receipt/undertaking of having received the sum. In order to payoff the loan, the petitioner handed over five post dated cheques i.e. 05.06.1997, 05.07.1997, 05.08.1997 and 05.09.1997 to respondent No.2 i.e four cheques of Rs.2,500/each and one cheque dated 15.09.1997 for Rs.85,000/- drawn of Punjab National Bank, Amabala Cantt. The respondent No.2 presented three cheques which were dishonoured due to ‘insufficient funds’ in the account of the petitioner and thereafter, legal notice was served to the petitioner. The petitioner made the payment with respect to those cheques and assured that same will be encashed, but when the cheque amounting to Rs.85,000/- was presented to the bank, it stood dishonoured with remarks “Exceed Arrangement” vide memo dated 17.09.1997. Thereafter, respondent No.2 served notice dated 18.09.1997 demanding payment of the dishonoured cheque, however, petitioner failed to pay the amount within the statutory 15 days and then the complaint under Section 138 of the Act was instituted.

¶22

Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed the instant revision petition with a prayer that both the aforesaid judgments passed by the Courts below be set aside and the petitioner may be acquitted of the charges levelled against him as the matter has been compromised between the parties vide compromise deed dated 28.01.2016 as petitioner has paid entire compensation amount to respondent No.1-complainant.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of proceedings, petitioner and the complainant have entered into a

¶24

VANITA 2026.07.15 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment

¶25

CRR-920-2008

¶26

3

¶27

compromise dated 28.01.2016. He further submits that though there is no application for compounding the offence, however, he prays that since the parties have amicable settled their dispute, the matter may be compounded and the petitioner be acquitted in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Cout passed in Damodar S.Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H., 2010 (2) Crimes 233 .

¶28

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 admits the factum of compromise having been arrived at between the parties and submits that he has no objection in case the offence is permitted to be compounded and the petitioner is ordered to be acquitted.

¶29

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record.

¶30

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramgopal and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021(4) RCR (Criminal) 322 , has held that in noncompoundable cases of pre-dominantly private nature, even if compromise is reached after conviction, the proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Further, the compromise in the present case is found to be fully covered in consonance of judgments and directions issued by the Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012(4) RCR (Crl.) 543 .

¶31

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.T.Sivaperumal vs.Mohammed Hyath (D) by LRs, decided on 27.03.2017 , has held that once the settlement between the parties has been arrived at, the conviction can also be set aside and the litigation too. Similar view has been taken by a Coordinate Bench of this

¶32

VANITA 2026.07.15 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment

¶33

CRR-920-2008

¶34

4

¶35

Court in the case of Jagmohan Vs. Sandeep Aggarwal and another, 2021(4)

¶36

RCR (Criminal) 86 .

¶37

A perusal of the record reveals that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioner and the complainant, therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.11.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ambala Cantt, and the judgment dated 16.04.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala are set aside; the complaint under Section 138 of the Act stands dismissed and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge in view of the fact that the petitioner has already deposited an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the complainant.

¶38

The present petition is allowed in the aforementioned terms.

¶39

Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise.

¶40

Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of in view of the above-said judgment. Copy of this order be forwarded to the trial Court to ensure compliance.

¶41

Since the main case is disposed of, pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶42

(DEEPAK MANCHANDA)

¶43

JUDGE

¶44

09.07.2026 vanita

¶45

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No

¶46

VANITA 2026.07.15 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment

Prem Chand v. State of Haryana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Chand v. State of Haryana and Another

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

Dalip Singh Vs State of Punjab

Parveen Singla Vs State of Haryana

Dalip Kumar Vs Anil Kumar Dahiya, the Engineer-in-Chief and Others

Ram Mehar Vs State of Haryana

Anwar Vs State of Haryana

Lachhman Singh Vs State of Punjab