LAKHVIR SINGH BRAR ALIAS GOGI vs MANJIT SINGH — CRR/139/2025

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 11th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010066302025

Filing Number

CRR/3597/2025

Filing Date

14-Jan-2025

Registration No

CRR/139/2025

Registration Date

17-Jan-2025

Judge

Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra

Coram

Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra

Bench Type

Single

Category

37.41 - CRR AGNST CONV ORDER U/S 138 OF NI ACT ( 621 )

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

11-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.LAKHVIR SINGH BRAR ALIAS GOGI

    Adv. AMITOJ SINGH DHALIWAL

  2. 2.LAKHVIR SINGH BRAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MANJIT SINGH

  2. 2.LAKHVIR SINGH BRAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-May-2026

    Mrs. Justice Manisha BatraView PDF

    Case Summary: CRR/139/2025 The High Court of Punjab & Haryana allowed Lakhvir Singh Brar's revision petition and set aside his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, after he and complainant Manjit Singh reached an amicable settlement. Brar had issued a dishonored cheque for Rs. 2,00,000 in 2016 and was sentenced to two years imprisonment; however, following full payment to the complainant via compromise deed dated 12.09.2024, both parties agreed to compound the offense. The court found the settlement valid and genuine, prioritizing the compensatory aspect over punishment as per Supreme Court precedent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Jan-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRR/139/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRR/139/2025 The High Court of Punjab & Haryana allowed Lakhvir Singh Brar's revision petition and set aside his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, after he and complainant Manjit Singh reached an amicable settlement. Brar had issued a dishonored cheque for Rs. 2,00,000 in 2016 and was sentenced to two years imprisonment; however, following full payment to the complainant via compromise deed dated 12.09.2024, both parties agreed to compound the offense. The court found the settlement valid and genuine, prioritizing the compensatory aspect over punishment as per Supreme Court precedent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case