CRL.R.NO.1666 of 2010 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRL.R.NO.1666 of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF ORDER: 14.7.2010 Pardeep Behl .....Petitioner vs. Rakesh Gupta ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Narinder Lucky, Advocate for respondent No.1- complainant. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab for respondent No.2. JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) Crl.M.No.30442 of 2010 Application is allowed as prayed for. Crl.RNo.1666 of 2010 Present revision has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 22.4.2009 passed by ld. JMIC, Kapurthala whereby he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo one year RI along with fine of Rs.5000/- for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (for short “the Act”); further prayer is for quashing order dated 20.5.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala whereby the appeal filed against order dated 28.7.2009 was dismissed for non-prosecution. In brief, the allegations are that the petitioner-accused issued two cheques dated 25.7.2005 for an amount of Rs.20,000/- each in favour of CRL.R.NO.1666 of 2010 #2# the complainant-Rakesh Gupta on account of repayment of a loan. The cheques were presented and dishonored and thereafter after following the due procedure of law, the complaint was filed. During the course of hearing before this Court on 6.7.2010, it was stated by the petitioner-accused that the parties have entered into a compromise vide compromise deed dated 25.5.2010 (P.1) and the entire outstanding amount has been paid to the complainant. Respondent No.1- Rakesh Gupta appeared before this court and was identified by his counsel. He stated before this Court on the last date of hearing i.e 6.7.2010 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 he had received the entire payment towards full and final payment of the dispute. He also owned the compromise deed (P.1) and his signatures appended thereto. His statement was also recorded on 6.7.2010 and the case was adjourned because of the fact that there was no application for compounding of the offence and acquittal of the petitioner. Accordingly, the above mentioned application bearing Crl.M.No.30442 of 2010 has been filed praying for compounding the offence. 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.1666 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 No.2, this Court is of the opinion that there is no legal impediment in invoking the powers under Section 147 of the Act and compounding the offence. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed subject to payment of Rs.4000/- as costs. Order dated 22.4.2009 of conviction and sentence recorded by the ld. Trial Court and the appellate order dated 28.7.2009 dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution are set aside. Petitioner is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. This order shall, however, become operational on the deposit of Rs.4000/- as costs with the Punjab State Legal Services Authority, Kapurthala within six weeks from date of order and submission of receipt of the payment before the ld. Trial Court, failing which revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. July 14, 2010 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE CRL.R.NO.1666 of 2010 #4#