IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. M. No. 34778-M of 2009 Date of Decision:16.5.2011 Jagjeet Singh .... Petitioner Versus Sunil Kumar Jain and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Kewal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. Vipul Jain, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint dated 11.5.2006 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, titled as Sunil Kumar Jain v. Jagjeet Singh” pending in the Court of learned CJM, Sangrur (Annexure P-1). The facts of the case in brief are that complainant/respondent No.1 had filed the complaint in question alleging therein that the petitioner in order to pay the rent of the shop issued a cheque No.198666 dated 26.8.2005 of Bank of Punjab, Ludhaian of Rs.4050/-, which later on encashment was bounced with remarks of insufficient balance. However, during the course of trial the petitioner deposited the aforesaid cheque amount of Rs.4050/- by way of demand draft No.004249 dated 21.8.2007 issued in favour of Crl. M. No. 34778-M of 2009 -2- the complainant. The learned trial Court recorded the statement of the complainant-respondent No.1 with regard to the acceptance of the money vide order dated 21.9.2007. Thus, it is not disputed that respondent No.1-complainant has already accepted the amount towards the dishonoured cheque. This Court in the case of Balbir Singh v. M/s Aggarwal Mfg. Co. (Crl. Misc. No.23421-M of 2008 decided on 11.11.2010) was pleased to observe in the similar circumstances as under: “ The provisions of Section 147 of the Act, which makes all the offences under the Act compoundable and the law laid down to the effect that compounding of the offences under the Act would be permissible even after conviction would indicate the manner in which the Courts should deal with an offence allegedly committed under the Act. In a situation, where the accused is ready and willing to pay the a mount of the cheque in question the insistence of the complainant for an adjudication on merits by refusing to accept the amount, itself, would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.” Taking into account that the petitioner has already paid the cheque amount to respondent No.1-complainant and the same has been duly accepted by the complainant, the petitioner is facing trial unnecessarily. The pendency of the criminal proceedings would not serve any purpose and amounts to abuse of the process of law. Crl. M. No. 34778-M of 2009 -3- Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the complaint dated 11.5.2006 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, titled as Sunil Kumar Jain v. Jagjeet Singh” pending in the Court of learned CJM, Sangrur (Annexure P-1) and consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. 16.5.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE