Vikas Kumar v. Pawan Kumar and Anr

IN

Vikas Kumar Pawan Kumar an

CORAM : HON

Present: Mr MANDEEP PA

1.

the impugned j dated 21.08.201 whereby he has a period of 01 y Instruments Ac respondent No.2 dated 04.07.202 the appeal of the of sentence has

2.

cordial relations the money of R domestic need a keeping in view genuine persona THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

CR

CR

Da

VERSUS nd Another

N'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDE . Gaurav Jain, Advocate for the pe -.- ANNU J. (Oral) e petitioner has filed the instant judgment of conviction dated 17, passed by the learned Chie been convicted and sentenced to year for the offence punishable u ct, 1881 (for short 'the Act') 2 to the tune of cheque amount i. 26, passed by learned Addl. Sess e petitioner against the aforesaid been dismissed. e brief facts of the case are t s with the complainant and he re Rs.1,00,000/- as he is in need of and the complainant paid a sum w the cordial relations and genuin al need of the accused and it was JAB AND HARYANA ARH RM-11731-2026 in/and RR-1410-2024 (O&M) ate of Decision : 25.03.2026

....Petitioner ....Respondents EEP PANNU etitioner. t revision petition for setting as

18.08.2017 and order of sente f Judicial Magistrate Fatehab o undergo simple imprisonment under Section 138 of the Negotia and to pay compensation to .e. Rs.90,000/- as also the judgm sions Judge, Fatehabad, vide wh d judgment of conviction and or that the accused had been hav equested to the complainant to le sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to fulfill m of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the accu ne personal need of the accused a s assured by the accused at that ti

side bad, for able ment hich rder ving end his used and

that he will repa accused was und demanded his a after great effor amount of Rs. 1 liability, the acc Rs. 1,00,000/- o of India Branch assured to the honoured, but knowing that t insufficient fund the said cheque India Branch M 1,00,000/- of s Fatehabad retur dishonur dated account of the a no. 712465 date

3.

It h unpaid, the com post on 26.04.2 Kumar Dharnia to make the pay receipt of the no service of lega ay the said amount to the comp der lawful liability to pay a sum above-mentioned amount of Rs rts of the complainant, the accu 1,00,000/- to the complainant. In cused issued a cheque no. 7124 of his account no. 30697741758 m h Mini Secretariat, Fatehabad in complainant that on presentat the accused was dishonest rig the cheque on presentation ca ds in the account to honour the c e no. 712465 dated 23.03.2016 Mini Secretariat, Fatehabad in ord said cheque and State Bank o rned this cheque as unpaid to t

13.04.2016 on the ground tha accused with the remarks 'funds ed 23.03.2016 of accused Vikas K has been further averred that a mplainant served a legal notice 2016 with acknowledgment du , Advocate, Fatehabad, to the ac yment of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the otice and the notice has been dul l notice, the accused has not plainant as soon as possible and of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The complain . 1,00,000/- from the accused a sed agreed to repay the above-s n discharge of the above-said law 465 dated 23.03.2016 amounting maintained by him with State Ba n the name of the complainant a tion of cheque, the same will ght from the beginning and fu annot be honoured as there w cheque. The complainant deposi in his account with State Bank der to collect the said amount of of India Branch Mini Secretar the complainant with his memo at there is insufficient fund in s insufficient' and thus said cheq Kumar has been dishonoured. after receipt of the said cheque to the accused through registe ue through his counsel Sh. Su ccused thereby calling upon to h complainant within 15 days of y served to the accused, but desp made the payment of the cheq

nant and said wful g to ank and be ully was ited k of Rs. riat, o of que e as ered unil him pite

amount and eve issued the chequ the account of th

4.

imprisonment fo of the Negotia compensation to by the learned aggrieved, the p learned Addition the present revis

5.

under Section 1 permission from charges under S

6.

Lea appeal filed by petitioner paid a He further sub Instruments Act and once the dis substantial amo complaint cease aforesaid judgm acquitted of the

7.

en did not bother to give reply o ue to the complainant knowing he accused. Hence, the present c e petitioner was convicted an or a period of 01 year for the off able Instruments Act, 1881 ( o the respondent No.2 to the tune Chief Judicial Magistarate, vid present petitioner has filed the a nal Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, v sion petition has been filed. 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 the petitioner, both the parties an amount of Rs.60,000/- as full bmits that the offence under 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. of the legal notice. The accused ly that there is insufficient fund omplaint. nd sentenced to undergo sim fence punishable under Section (for short 'the Act') and to p e of cheque amount i.e. Rs.90,00 de order dated 21.08.2017. Feel appeal, which was dismissed by vide order dated 04.07.2024. He application i.e. CRM-11731-20 n 528 of BNSS/482 Cr.P.C, seek offence and to acquit him of ments Act. averred that after dismissing of s compromised the matter and and final settlement of the dispu Section 138 of the Negotia 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

has d in mple pay 00/- ling king ute. able ed a

8.

On accepts notice complaint case parties.

9.

10.

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

11.

Hyath (D) by L that once the set also be set asi Coordinate Ben and another, 20

12.

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

13.

I ha n the asking of the Court, Mr. on behalf of the respondent-and he is not aware of any one has put in appearance on be 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 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 . Sahil Chowdhary, AAG, Pun -State and submits that this i compromise effected between ehalf of the complainant. 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 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.

njab s a case nal) t, it med held can y a wal dent y be eme ned

14.

In t the law laid do offence can be amount by way Rs.6,750/-. As compromise. C compound the o

15.

In

18.08.2017 and Judicial Magist learned Addl. S Section 138 of t charge(s), subje Legal Services Court in Sanjab certified copy of

16.

17.

Reg depositing of co

18.

All

March 25, 2026 tripti

Whether

Whether the present case, the cheque(s) own in Sanjabij Tari's case (sup allowed, provided the petitioner of costs. On calculation, 7.5% noticed above, the parties hav RM-11731-2026 is allowed an offence punishable under section view of the above, the impugn d order of sentence dated 21.08 trate Fatehabad and the judgm Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, are the Act stands dismissed and th ect to her depositing the costs o 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 amount is Rs.90,000/-. In view upra), compounding of the pres r-accused pays 7.5% of the cheq of the cheque amount comes to ve settled the dispute by way nd this Court grants permission 138 of the Act ned judgment of conviction da .2017 passed by the learned Ch ment dated 04.07.2024 passed e set aside. The complaint un he petitioner stands acquitted of of Rs.6.750/- with the Punjab St 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

w of sent que o be y of n to ated hief by nder tate eme f the ms. s to