Avtar Singh v. Gurnam Singh & Anr

101+331

IN

Avtar Singh Gurnam Singh an

CORAM : HON

Present: Mr

Mr

Mr

Mr

Mr MANDEEP PA

1.

the impugned j passed by the l been convicted years and to pay imprisonment o Negotiable Instr

12.04.2017, pas appeal of the pe sentence dated 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

CR

CR

Da

VERSUS nd Another

N'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDE . P.S.Jammu, Advocate and . Gaurav, Advocate for the petitio r. Anmol Sharma, Advocate for r. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, for r r. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG, Punjab -.-

ANNU J. (Oral) e petitioner has filed the instant udgment of conviction and ord learned Judicial Magistrate Ist and sentenced to undergo rigoro y fine of Rs.5000/- and in defau of 20 days for the offence pun ruments Act, 1881 (for short 'th ssed by learned Addl. Sessions etitioner against the aforesaid jud

19.09.2016 has been dismissed. JAB AND HARYANA ARH RM-30633-2024 in/and RR-1524-2017 (O&M) ate of Decision : 25.03.2026

....Petitioner ....Respondents EEP PANNU oner. respondent No.1 b. t revision petition for setting as der of sentence dated 19.09.20 Class, Kapurthala whereby he ous imprisonment for a period of ult of fine to further undergo sim nishable under Section 138 of he Act') as also the judgment da Judge, Kapurthala, vide which dgment of conviction and order

side 016, has f 02 mple ated

2.

allegedly taken in order to disch no.085952 dated drawn at Capi presentation of dishonored with Thereafter, the which, the accu allegedly transp complaint.

3.

imprisonment fo of fine to furt punishable unde Class, Kapurtha petitioner has f Sessions Judge revision petition

4.

under Section 1 permission from charges under S e brief facts of the case are that t a loan of Rs.4 lac from the comp harge his legal liability, the same d 15.05.2013 amounting to Rs. ital Local Area Bank Ltd., the aforesaid cheque for encas h memo dated 18.05.2013 with complainant also sent a legal used failed to make the payment pired above, the complainant e petitioner was convicted an or a period of 02 years and to p ther undergo simple imprisonm er Section 138 of the Act by t ala, vide order dated 19.09.201 filed the appeal, which was dis , Kapurthala, vide order dated n 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 the complainant is that accused h plainant for his domestic needs a e allegedly issued a cheque bear .4 lac in favor of the complaina Jalandhar Road, Kapurthala. shment, the same was returned h the reason "Funds Insufficien l notice dated 23.05.2013 desp t. Hence, on the basis of what h has been constrained to file nd sentenced to undergo rigor pay fine of Rs.5000/- and in defa ment of 20 days for the offe the learned Judicial Magistrate,

¶16Feeling aggrieved, the pres smissed by the learned Additio d 12.04.2017. Hence the pres application i.e. CRM-30633-20 n 528 of BNSS/482 Cr.P.C, seek offence and to acquit him of ments Act.

had and ring ant, On d as nt". pite had rous ault nce Ist sent onal sent

5.

Lea the present revis the Mediation No.1 has filed h paid an amount further submits Act is essentiall dispute has been amount in full a exist. Learned c passed by the C charge(s) levelle

6.

Lea matter has been placed on recor the complainant allowed.

7.

On complaint case parties.

8.

Lea of 'Tilak Katar 404, wherein, a arned counsel for the petitioner a sion petition, both the parties ha Centre of this Court and in th his affidavit. Learned counsel t of Rs.3,75,000/- as full and f that the offence under Section ly a civil wrong given the colou n amicably settled and the com and final settlement, the very fou counsel for the petitioner prays Courts below be set aside and ed against her. arned counsel for respondent N compromised before the Mediat rd his affidavit to that effect. Le t/respondent No.1 has no objec n the other hand, learned Stat and he is not aware of any arned counsel for the petitioner r ria vs. State of Haryana and an after considering various judgme averred that during the pendency ave compromised the matter bef his regard complainant-respond further submits that the petitio final settlement of the dispute. 138 of the Negotiable Instrume ur of criminal offence and once mplainant has received a substan undation of the complaint ceases that both the aforesaid judgme the petitioner be acquitted of o.1 – complainant submits that tion Centre of this Court and he earned counsel further submits t ction, if the present application te counsel submits that this i compromise effected between relies upon the judgment in the c nother', 2021 (3) RCR (Crimin ents of the Hon'ble Apex Court

y of fore dent oner He ents ntial s to ents has that n is s a case nal) t, it

has been held proceedings sho

9.

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

10.

Lea No.2, are ad-ide of this Court and parties to comp laid down by t Babalal H, 201 S.Borcar, 2025 learned trial Co petitioner be acq

11.

I ha

12.

A p matter was sent chances of the c the Mediator ha dispute amicably 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 em that the matter stands compro d the petition may be allowed an ound the offence under Section the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 10 (2) RCR (Criminal) 851 a 5 INSC 1158, the impugned ju ourt and the learned Appellate quitted of the charge(s). ave heard learned counsel for the perusal of the case file reveals th t to Mediation and Concilation C compromise amongst the parties as been received to the effect y. 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 omised before the Mediation Cen nd permission may be granted to n 138 of the Act in view of the l n Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Say and Sanjabij Tari versus Kish udgments and order passed by e Court may be set aside and e parties and perused the record. hat vide order dated 02.08.2024, Centre of this Court to explore s. In pursuance thereof, a report that the parties have settled th

med held can y a wal dent ntre law yed ore t of

13.

In t the law laid do offence can be amount by way Rs.30,000/-. As compromise. CR compound the o

14.

In v on quantum o Magistrate Ist C learned Addl. S Section 138 of t charge(s), subje Legal Services Court in Sanjab certified copy of

15.

16.

Reg depositing of co

17.

All

March 24, 2026 tripti

Whether

Whether the present case, the cheque(s) a own in Sanjabij Tari's case (sup allowed, provided the petitioner of costs. On calculation, 7.5% s noticed above, the parties ha RM-30633-2024 is allowed an offence punishable under section view of the above, the impugned of sentence dated 19.09.2016 Class, Kapurthala and the judg Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, ar the Act stands dismissed and th ect to her depositing the costs of 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.4,00,000/-. In view upra), compounding of the pres r-accused pays 7.5% of the cheq of the cheque amount comes to ave 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 12.04.2017 passed re set aside. The complaint un he petitioner stands acquitted of f Rs.30,000/- 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 rder cial by nder tate eme f the ms. s to