Criminal Revision No.1698 of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1698 of 2004(O&M) Date of decision:-08.5.2008. Kamal Khanna ...Petitioner. Versus M/s M.S. Enterprises ...Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present:- Mr. Manu K. Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. I.S.Gill, Advocate for the respondent. RAJESH BINDAL J. The present petition was taken up on an application filed by the petitioner for disposal of the main petition on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. A brief narration of the facts would be sufficient. The petitioner in the present case had issued a cheque for Rs. 20,661.75 paise to the complainant as part payment of rent. However, the same was returned with the endorsement 'Insufficient funds'. On petitioner's having failed to comply with the statutory notice, complaint was filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') in which the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and also to pay fine of Rs.2000/- vide judgment dated November 26, 2002. Criminal Revision No.1698 of 2004 -2- The judgment of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad was upheld by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide judgment dated August 23, 2004. Revision Petition filed by the accused is admitted and pending before this court. During the pendency of the petition, the parties have settled their disputes by way of compromise dated March 3, 2008, annexed with the application as Annexure A-1. In terms of the compromise not only the dispute in the present case which has been settled but even Regular Second Appeal No.1995 of 2004 pending before this court titled as M/s Karm Engineering Works v/s M/s M.S. Enterprises was to be withdrawn and other terms were also agreed upon in detailed regarding increase of lease money of the property in possession of the petitioner and also vacation thereof on or before March 31, 2013 after the expiry of the extended lease period. A sum of Rs.72,000/- was deposited with the Additional District Judge, Faridabad by way of demand draft which the respondent-complainant was entitled to withdraw after settlement of the disputes. It is submitted that in terms of the statement the Regular Second Appeal No.1995 of 2004 has already been withdrawn and after the settlement of the disputes in the present case the petitioner will not have any objection to the handing over demand draft of Rs.72,000/- to the respondent-complainant. As the dispute between the parties has been settled, the prayer is for setting aside of conviction and the sentence awarded to the petitioner. 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 Criminal Revision No.1698 of 2004 -3- 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 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 compounding 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 Criminal Revision No.1698 of 2004 -4- (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 conviction is compoundable, accordingly, it is directed that the order of conviction and sentence awarded by the Courts below in the case of the Criminal Revision No.1698 of 2004 -5- petitioner is set aside and he is acquitted of the charges against him. The bail bonds submitted by the petitioner are discharged. The petition is disposed of accordingly. 8th May, 2008. (RAJESH BINDAL) asija JUDGE