Crl.R.No.1821-M of 2010 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.R.No.1821-M of 2010 Date of Order: 24.8.2010 Roshan Lal .....Petitioner Vs. Jyoti Taneja .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. R.S. Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yash Dev Kaushik.Advocate for the respondent. JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) Present revision petition under Section 401 Cr.P.C has filed against the judgment and order dated 25/26.2.2010 passed by ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat whereby the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the Act”); further prayer is for quashing order dated 28.5.2010 passed by ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat dismissing the appeal. In nutshell, allegations are that the petitioner-accused had issued one cheque dated 18.12.2007 amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of the complainant-Jyoti Taneja in discharge of his liability. Said cheque was presented and dishonoured and thereafter after following the due procedure of law, the complaint was filed. This court while hearing on 17.8.2010 on the submission raised on behalf of the petitioner that he is desirous of compounding the offence by Crl.R.No.1821-M of 2010 #2# paying the entire amount of compensation awarded i.e Rs.1,10,000/-, had issued notice of motion for today. Sh. Yash Dev Kaushik, Advocate has put in appearance for the respondent-complainant and does not oppose the compounding of offence as during the course of hearing, a bank draft No.000258 dated 3.8.2010 for a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- payable to the respondent-complainant has been handed over to him towards full and final payment of the dispute. Photo copy of the same has been retained for the purpose of record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also produced the receipt of payment of Rs.15,000/- with the Haryana State Legal Services Authority towards 10% as costs to be paid for compounding the offence, in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal, 2010 (2) RCR (Criminal) 851 and Rs.5000/- as fine imposed by the ld. Trial Court. Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant states that he has no objection if the revision petition is allowed and the conviction and sentence of the petitioner is set aside and the offence compounded as the entire payment towards full and final payment of the dispute has been made. The legal position that the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in view of the provisions of Section 147 of the Act, can be compounded even after the conviction, at the stage of revision is no longer res-integra, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of O.P. Dholkia v. State of Haryana & Anr, 2000(1) SCC 762 permitted the compounding of the offence despite conviction and sentence upheld at three stages after the convict had discharged his debt liability to the satisfaction of the complainant. Similar view was reiterated in Shailesh Shyam Parsekar v. Crl.R.No.1821-M of 2010 #3# Baban @ Vishwanath (2005) 4 SCC 162 and Rama Reddy v. Annapurna Seeds & Anr (2005) 10 SCC 632. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinay Devanna Nayak v. Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd 2008(1) RCR (Criminal) has set aside the conviction and sentence recorded and affirmed upto the High Court and thereby acquitted the offender of the charges levelled against him in view of the matter having been compromised after discharging of the debt liability. Keeping in view the aforesaid settled legal position and the fact that the petitioner has discharged his entire debt liability to the satisfaction of the complainant-respondent, this Court is of the opinion that there is no legal impediment invoking the powers under Section 147 of the Act and compounding the offence. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and judgment and order dated 25/26.2.2010 of conviction and sentence recorded by the ld. Trial Court and the appellate order dated 28.5.2010 dismissing the appeal are set aside. Petitioner is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. August 24, 2010 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE