Crl. Rev. No. 505 of 2002 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH * * * * * Crl. Rev. No. 505 of 2002 Date of decision : February 4, 2010 * * * * * Ajit Pal Singh ............Petitioner Versus M/s Friends Investment and Finance Company & another ...........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH * * * * * Present: Mr. R.S Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.S Madhok in person. Mr. Simsi Dhir Malhotra, AAG, Punjab. * * * * * JORA SINGH, J. Ajit Pal Singh filed this revision petition to challenge the judgment dated 28.2.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. By this judgment, appeal against the judgment and order dated 2.6.1999 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalandhar was dismissed. Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') was instituted by M/s Friends Investment and Finance Company through its partner, Crl. Rev. No. 505 of 2002 [2] D.S Madhok on the allegation that Ajit Pal Singh had issued cheque dated 6.11.1996 for a sum of Rs.1,18,490/-. Cheque was dishonoured. Ultimately, complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed. After appearance of the respondent, evidence was led by the complainant. After close of the prosecution evidence, statement of the respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Respondent stated that cheque was issued as a security. Nothing is due towards the complainant. After hearing learned counsel for the complainant and from the perusal of the evidence on the file, trial Court convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo SI for a period of two months. Against the judgment/order of the JMIC, Jalandhar, appeal was preferred but first appeal was dismissed vide the impugned judgment. Today, petitioner and the respondent appeared in person with their counsel. Counsel for the parties states that the parties have effected compromise and in view of the compromise, revision be accepted and petitioner be acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Affidavit of D.S Madhok has been produced along with the power of attorney and the same are ordered to be taken on record. Crl. Rev. No. 505 of 2002 [3] On enquiry, Mr. D.S Madhok present in the Court states that he has affected compromise with the petitioner. He has received payment. Nothing is due from the petitioner. Counsel for the respondent also states that the parties have effected compromise. In view of the affidavit of Mr. D.S Madhok, no objection, if revision is accepted. According to the story, cheque dated 6.11.1996 for a sum of Rs.1,18,490/- was issued in favour of the respondent by the petitioner but the cheque was dishonoured. Now parties have affected compromise and as per the compromise, nothing is due from the petitioner. In view of the compromise Ex.CX i.e affidavit of D.S Madhok, revision petition is accepted. Petitioner is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. February 4, 2010 ( JORA SINGH ) ritu JUDGE