CRR No. 2401 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No. 2401 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.5.2011 Surjit Singh ........ Petitioner Versus Rupinder Singh ........ Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Arun Chandra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate, for the respondent. JORA SINGH, J. CRM No. 27007 of 2011 CRM No. 46325 of 2010, was allowed and compromise Annexure P-1 and receipt dated 30.8.2010 for a sum of ` 2,30,000/- Annexure P-2, are ordered to be taken on record. In view of the compromise, there is no justification to send case to the Lok Adalat/Mediation and Conciliation Centre. Accordingly, Criminal Miscellaneous stands disposed of. CRR No. 2401 of 2010 Surjit Singh, preferred this revision to impugn the judgment dated 5.8.2010, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda, in Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 3.9.2009. By the said judgment, appeal against the judgment of CRR No. 2401 of 2010 (O&M) -2- conviction and order of sentence dated 7.8.2009, passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda, and Criminal Revision No. 45 of 24.9.2009 RT No. 82 of 22.10.2009, were dismissed. Story, in brief, is that Rupinder Singh-respondent/ complainant, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against Surjit Singh, on the allegation that Surjit Singh, agreed to sell land measuring 8 marlas comprised in Khasra No. 660 min (0-8) situated in village Balhar in the sum of ` 1,00,000/-. Agreement to sell dated 30.11.2005, was executed. ` 1 lac was paid to Surjit Singh as earnest money. Sale deed was to be executed on or before 1.8.2006. As per agreement to sell, petitioner-accused failed to execute the sale deed then he (petitioner) issued a cheque No. 244750 dated 7.11.2006, for a sum of ` 2,00,000/-. Cheque was dishonoured and after completing the legal formalities, complaint under Section 138 of the Act, was instituted. Ultimately, Surjit Singh-petitioner, was convicted and sentenced vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7.8.2009, passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that parties have effected compromise. Written compromise Annexure P-1 in on the file. As per compromise, entire payment as per cheque in question was returned to the respondent. Nothing is due. Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that parties have effected compromise. Entire payment with interest was received. In view of the compromise, no objection if the instant revision petition is accepted. Parties allowed to CRR No. 2401 of 2010 (O&M) -3- compound the offence. According to the story, petitioner issued cheque No. 244750 dated 7.11.2006, for a sum of ` 2 lacs. Cheque was dishonoured. After completing the legal formalities, complainant under Section 138 of the Act, instituted. Now, the parties have effected compromise. Written compromise dated 30.8.2010, is on the file. Offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act is compoundable. Parties have effected compromise and under Section 320 Cr.P.C. when the offence is compoundable and parties have effected compromise then accused is to be acquitted. Relevant provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. are reproduced as under: “Section 320 (5) When the accused has been committed for trial or when he has been convicted and an appeal is pending, no composition for the offience shall be allowed without the leave of the Court to which he is committed, or, as the case may be, before which the appeal is to be heard. (6) A High Court or Court of Session acting in the exercise of its powers of revision under Section 401 may allow any person to compound any offence which such person is competent to compound under this section. (8) The composition of an offience under this section shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been CRR No. 2401 of 2010 (O&M) -4- compounded.” Surijit Singh-petitioner present in Court states that compromise has been effected with the respondent. Entire payment with interest was re-paid. As discussed earlier, petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Section 138 of the Act and offence under Section 138 of the Act is compoundable. In view of all discussed above, impugned judgment 5.8.2010, is set aside. Petitioner is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Revision petition is allowed. May 23, 2011 ( JORA SINGH ) rishu JUDGE