Criminal Revision No. 2351 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 2351 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.11.2009 Ravi Kant alias Viki ..... Petitioner vs M/s Goodwill Hire Purchase Corporation and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate, for respondent no. 1. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent no. 2. Rajesh Bindal J. The petitioner has filed the present revision before this Court challenging his conviction by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act,1881, which was upheld by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. The petitioner has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he had to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. When the petition came up for hearing on 13.11.2009 before this Court, the petitioner was released on bail after recording following contentions:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is ready and willing to pay the amount of the cheque i.e. Rs. 63,750/- to the respondent- complainant to settle the dispute with him. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that he has instructions from his client to submit that the offence against the petitioner can be compounded and the complaint filed by the respondent for dishonour of cheque in question can be treated as dismissed on payment of aforesaid amount. However, there is other amount due against the petitioner for which the respondent will avail remedies in accordance with law. In terms of the statements of both the counsels, Criminal Revision No. 2351 of 2009 2 learned counsel for the petitioner has handed over a sum of Rs. 63,750/- to the counsel for the respondent in Court. As the offence against the petitioner can be compounded only on a statement of the complainant, adjourned to 18.11.2009.” In terms of the aforesaid order, today the complainant-respondent appeared in person in court and got recorded his statement to the effect that as the petitioner has made the payment of cheque in question, the complaint filed by him against the petitioner for dishonour of cheque may be treated as dismissed. It was further stated that he has no objection in case the conviction of the petitioner is set aside. The text thereof is as under:- “It is stated that I have lodged a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the basis of which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced. Now, the petitioner has made the payment of cheque in question. The offence against the petitioner may be compounded and the complaint filed by me for dishonour of cheque may be treated as dismissed. I have no objection if the conviction and sentence against the petitioner is set aside. However, there is other amount due against the petitioner for which I will be at liberty to avail remedies in accordance with law.” Once the parties have settled their dispute, in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Vinay Devanna Nayak v. Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd., 2007 (5) Law Herald (SC) 3843, the offence committed by the petitioner for which he has been convicted, is compoundable. Relevant paras therefrom are extracted below:- “17. As observed by this Court in Electronic Trade & Technology Development Corporation Ltd. v. Indian Technologists & Engineers, (1996) 2 SCC 739, the object of bringing Section 138 in the statute book is to inculcate faith in the efficacy of banking operations and credibility in transacting business on negotiable instruments. The provision is intended to prevent dishonesty on the part of the drawer of negotiable instruments in issuing cheques without sufficient funds or with a view to inducing the payee Criminal Revision No. 2351 of 2009 3 or holder in due course to act upon it. It thus seeks to promote the efficacy of bank operations and ensures credibility in transacting business through cheques. In such matters, therefore, normally componding of offences should not be denied. Presumably, Parliament also realised this aspect and inserted Section 147 by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002. (Act 55 of 2002). The said section reads thus: S.147. Offences to be compoundable.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable. 18. Taking into consideration even the said provision (Section 147) and the primary object underlying Section 138, in our judgment, there is no reason to refuse compromise between the parties. We, therefore, dispose of the appeal on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the appellant and the respondent. 19. For the foregoing reasons the appeal deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed by holding that since the matter has been compromised between the parties and the amount of Rs. 45,000/- has been paid by the appellant towards full and final settlement to the respondent-bank towards its dues, the appellant is entitled to acquittal. The order of conviction and sentence recorded by all courts is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge levelled against him.” Hon'ble the Supreme Court in 2008 (2) Criminal Court Cases 233 (R.Rajeshwari v/s H.N.Jagdish) opined that table appended to Section 320 Cr.P.C. is not attracted for offences under the Act as Section 147 thereof gives it overriding effect as the same provides for a non obstente clause, Stricto Senso, however, the table appended to Section 320 Cr.P.C. is not attracted as the provisions mentioned therein refer only to provisions of IPC and none other. It is further held that even a compromise arrived at by the advocate of the party, authorised to do so, is binding on the party concerned. In view of settlement of dispute between the parties, the offence and Criminal Revision No. 2351 of 2009 4 conviction is compoundable, accordingly, it is directed that the order of conviction and sentence awarded by the Courts below in the case of the petitioner is set aside and he is acquitted from all the charges levelled against him. The surety is discharged. The petition is disposed of. 18.11.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge