Baljyot Sidhu Alias Baljoyt Sidhu v. State of Punjab and Another

132+282

IN

Baljyot Sidhu @ State of Punjab a

CORAM : HON

Present: Mr MANDEEP PA

1.

the impugned j passed by the l been convicted year for the off Act, 1881 (for s the tune of ch

27.01.2026, pas appeal of the pe sentence dated 0

2.

the accused pers accused Baljyot THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

CR

CR

Da

@ Baljoyt Sidhu

VERSUS and Another

N'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDE . Aditya Anand, Advocate for the -.-

ANNU J. (Oral) e petitioner has filed the instant udgment of conviction and ord earned Judicial Magistrate Ist C and sentenced to undergo simpl fence punishable under Section short 'the Act') and to pay comp heque amount i.e. Rs.15,00,00 ssed by learned Addl. Sessions J etitioner against the aforesaid jud

01.08.2024 has been dismissed. e brief facts of the case are that sons since more than 10 years. It t Singh is the friend of the compl JAB AND HARYANA ARH RM-11832-2026 in/and RR-723-2026 (O&M) ate of Decision : 24.03.2026

....Petitioner ....Respondents EEP PANNU e petitioner. t revision petition for setting as der of sentence dated 01.08.20 Class, SAS Nagar whereby he le imprisonment for a period of 138 of the Negotiable Instrume pensation to the respondent No.2 00/- as also the judgment da Judge, SAS Nagar, vide which dgment of conviction and order the complainant's son is known t is the case of the complainant t lainant's son and he approached

side 024, has f 01 ents 2 to ated r of n to

complainant's so complainant to g the repayment o (Rs. 8 lacs as pr the cheque bear dishonoured wh was given. Ther NI Act.

3.

imprisonment fo of the Negotia compensation t Rs.15,00,000/- b dated 01.08.202 which was dism order dated 27.0

4.

under Section 1 permission from charges under S

5.

the present revis petitioner paid dispute. He furt on for a friendly loan. The son give the accused a sum of Rs. 8, of the loan amount which had a rinciple amount + Rs. 1,34,000/- ing no.711529 dated 22.10.2020 hen presented with the banker. L reafter, complainant filed the pr e petitioner was convicted an or a period of 01 year for the off able Instruments Act, 1881 ( to the respondent No.2 to t by the learned Judicial Magistrat

¶24Feeling aggrieved, the prese missed by the learned Additiona

01.2026. Hence the present revis e petitioner has also filed an 47 of the Act read with Section m this Court to compound the ection 138 of Negotiable Instrum arned counsel for the petitioner a sion petition, both the parties ha an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- a ther submits that the offence un n of the complainant requested ,00,000/- as friendly loan. In lieu ccrued for a total of Rs. 9,34,00 - as interest) the accused had issu 0 of Rs.9,34,000/- but the same w egal notice was issued but no re resent complaint under section nd sentenced to undergo sim fence punishable under Section (for short 'the Act') and to p the tune of cheque amount te, Ist Class, SAS Nagar, vide or ent petitioner has filed the app l Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, v sion petition has been filed. application i.e. CRM-11832-20 n 528 of BNSS/482 Cr.P.C, seek offence and to acquit him of ments Act. averred that during the pendency ave compromised the matter and as full and final settlement of nder Section 138 of the Negotia

u of 00/- ued was eply mple pay i.e. rder eal, vide king y of

Instruments Act and once the dis substantial amo complaint cease aforesaid judgm acquitted of the

6.

7.

On accepts notice complaint case parties.

8.

Mr and filed powe record. He subm and he has no ob

9.

of 'Tilak Katar 404, wherein, a has been held proceedings sho

10.

Hyath (D) by L that once the set also be set asi t is essentially a civil wrong giv spute has been amicably settled ount in full and final settlem es to exist. Learned counsel for ments passed by the Courts below charge(s) levelled against her. tice of motion. n the asking of the Court, Mr. on behalf of the respondent-and he is not aware of any r. Jatin, Advocate has appeared er of attorney on behalf of res mits that the matter has been com bjection, if the present applicatio arned counsel for the petitioner r ria vs. State of Haryana and an after considering various judgme that when the complainant d ould come to an end. e Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'A rs' 2017 (2) RCR (Criminal) 45 ttlement between the parties has ide and the litigation too. Sim ven the colour of criminal offe and the complainant has receive ment, the very foundation of r the petitioner prays that both w be set aside and the petitioner . Sahil Chowdhary, AAG, Pun -State and submits that this i compromise effected between through Video Conferencing mo spondent No.2, which is taken mpromised, the amount stands p on is allowed. relies upon the judgment in the c nother', 2021 (3) RCR (Crimin ents of the Hon'ble Apex Court does not have any objection, A.T. Sivaperumal vs. Mohamm 53, decided on 27.03.2017, has h been arrived at, the conviction milar view has been taken by

nce ed a r be njab s a ode on paid case nal) t, it med held can

Coordinate Ben and another, 20

11.

No.2, are ad-id allowed and pe under Section 1 Court in Damod and Sanjabij T judgments and Court may be se

12.

I ha

13.

In t the law laid do offence can be amount by way Rs.1,12,500/-. A compromise. C compound the o

14.

In v on quantum o Magistrate Ist C learned Addl. S Section 138 of t charge(s), subje nch of this Court in the case of 021(4) RCR (Criminal) 86. arned counsel for the petitioner dem that the matter stands comp rmission may be granted to the 38 of the Act in view of the law dar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babala Tari versus Kishore S.Borcar, order passed by the learned tria et aside and the petitioner be acq ave heard learned counsel for the the present case, the cheque(s) am own in Sanjabij Tari's case (sup allowed, provided the petitioner of costs. On calculation, 7.5% As noticed above, the parties h RM-11832-2026 is allowed an offence punishable under section view of the above, the impugned of sentence dated 01.08.2024 Class, SAS Nagar and the judg Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, ar the Act stands dismissed and th ct to her depositing the costs of R Jagmohan Vs. Sandeep Aggarw and learned counsel for respond mpromised and the petition may e parties to compound the offe laid down by the Hon'ble Supre al H, 2010 (2) RCR (Criminal) 8 2025 INSC 1158, the impugn al Court and the learned Appell quitted of the charge(s). e parties and perused the record. mount is Rs.15,00,000/-. In view upra), compounding of the pres r-accused pays 7.5% of the cheq of the cheque amount comes to have settled the dispute by way nd this Court grants permission 138 of the Act d judgment of conviction and or passed by the learned Judic gment dated 27.01.2026 passed re set aside. The complaint un he petitioner stands acquitted of Rs.1,12,500/- with the Punjab St

wal dent y be nce eme ned late w of sent que o be y of n to rder cial by nder

Legal Services Court in Sanjab certified copy of

15.

16.

Reg depositing of co

17.

All

March 24, 2026 tripti

Whether

Whether Authority, in view of the law l ij Tari's case (supra), within 15 f this order. e present revision petition is allo gistry is directed to ensure th osts by the petitioner. l pending miscellaneous applicat

r speaking/non-speaking : Speak r reportable

: Yes/N aid down by the Hon'ble Supre days from the date of receipt of owed in the aforementioned term he compliance of this order as tion(s), if any, stands disposed of (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE king

eme f the ms. s to