IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.649 of 2009 Date of Decision : February 25, 2010 Jasbir Kaur. ....Petitioner Versus Dalbir Singh .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Petitioner in person with Mr. R.S.Bajaj, Advocate Respondent in person with Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) A private criminal complaint was instituted by complainant- respondent Dalbir Singh against Jasbir Kaur-petitioner with the allegations that cheque dated 6.12.2004 issued by the petitioner in his favour for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was dishonoured on account of 'insufficient funds' maintained by the petitioner in her bank account. Vide judgment and order dated 5.6.2007, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, convicted the petitioner for the said offence and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for Crl. Revision No.649 of 2009 -2- two months. Aggrieved of her conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal but the same was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar on 12.3.2009. She then filed the present revision under Section 401 Cr.P.C., which was admitted on 18.3.2009 and she was ordered to be released on bail. On the last date of hearing, both the parties had come present in person and they jointly requested for an adjournment so as to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement. Today the parties have come present, once again. The complainant-respondent has suffered a statement that at the intervention of the respectables of the area, he has amicably settled the matter with the petitioner. He is no more interested in prosecuting the petitioner any further. He has prayed that the benefit of compromise be extended to the petitioner. Offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is compoundable. However, as the matter is pending in revision, the permission of the Court is required. The complainant has made a statement about the factum of compromise, which has been arrived at between him on the one hand and the petitioner on the other. He has also expressed his wish that the benefit of the compromise be extended to her. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in Crl. Revision No.649 of 2009 -3- view the statement made by the complainant-respondent in the Court today, this Court finds that the parties have since settled the matter between themselves and the complainant-respondent is no more interested in prosecuting the petitioner. He has prayed for extension of necessary benefit to the petitioner on account of an amicable settlement. Under these circumstances, the Court hereby grants permission to the complainant-respondent to compound the offence with the petitioner. Resultantly, the petition is accepted, conviction and sentence of the petitioner is set-aside and she is acquitted of the charge against her. ( T.P.S. MANN ) February 25, 2010 JUDGE ajay-1