Criminal Misc. No. M-14399 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Misc. No. M-14399 of 2011 Date of Decision: 16.5.2011 Gulzar Singh …Petitioner Versus Umang Bhakoo …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. R.S. Bains, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The petitioner had instituted a complaint against the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). In the complaint, grievance made by the petitioner was that the accused/respondent had issued a cheque for a sum of ` 50,000, the said cheque, when presented, had bounced. The accused/respondent appeared before the trial Court and stated that he is ready and willing to pay the amount of the cheque. Against the cheque of ` 50,000, the accused/petitioner has deposited ` 60,000 in the trial Court in terms of the order dated 1.4.2009 (Annexure P1) passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. No. M-9241 of 2009. The trial Court, relying upon Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. 2010(2) Recent Criminal Reports 851 stated that since sum of ` 60,000 was Criminal Misc. No. M-14399 of 2011 2 deposited vide challan on 11.6.2009, the compensatory aspect of the remedy has been taken care of as the appropriate payment has been made to the complainant and dismissed the complaint after compounding the offence. Grievance of the complainant is that he was not interested in repayment of the amount of cheque rather the respondent should have been taken to task and sent behind the bars. This Court, in M/s Sunil Kumar & Company and Another v. Baltej Singh Sidhu (Criminal Misc. No. M-22336 of 2008 decided on 14.10.2010) had taken a view that the trial Court under Section 147 of the Act can compound the offence without the consent of the complainant. The detailed discussion made in M/s Sunil Kumar & Company's case (supra) had noticed distinction between Section 320 Cr.P.C. and Section 147 of the Act. The view formulated by the trial Court is in consonance with the view propounded by this Court in M/s Sunil Kumar & Company's case (supra). Hence, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge May 16, 2011 “DK”