IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Revision No. 2057 of 2010 Sanjeev v. Om Parkash AND Crl.Revision No.2058 of 2010 Sanjeev v. Om Parkash AND Crl.Revision No.2060 of 2010 Sanjeev v. Om Parkash Date of decision: 6.9.2010 CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr.Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Opinder Kumar Thakkar, Advocate, for the respondent. **** ORDER This order of mine shall dispose of Criminal Revision petitions bearing Nos.2057 of 2010, 2058 of 2010 and 2060 of 2010 as the issue involved in all the three petitions is same between the parties. However, the facts are being taken from Crl.Revision No. 2057 of 2010. A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 420 IPC was filed by the respondent against the present petitioner which was allowed by the trial Court vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated Crl.Revision No. 2057 of 2010 [2] 19/20.11.2008 and the petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ( for short 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay the amount of cheque to the respondent as compensation. Against the judgment of the trial Court, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Ambala, which was also dismissed and the order of the trial Court was upheld. The present revision petitions have been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court as well as judgment passed in the appeal. Notice of motion was issued in the revision petitions and sentence of the petitioner was also suspended. During the pendency of the revision petition, the petitioner filed an application for compounding of offence and for setting aside of judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court as well as judgment of appellate Court in terms of compromise dated 31.7.2010 entered into between the parties. The compromise effected between the parties has also been placed on record. As per terms of the compromise, the complainant party was to receive an amount of Rs.77,000/- in lieu of 8 cheques issued by the petitioner. The said amount of Rs.77,000/- has been received by the respondent-complainant and no amount whatsoever remains to be paid. The respondent-complainant has also stated that he has no objection in compounding of the offence in all the three cases. Complainant Om Parkash is also present in the Court Crl.Revision No. 2057 of 2010 [3] who has been identified by his counsel and even on the asking of the Court, he has stated that the matter has been compromised between the parties and the amount in dispute has been duly received by him. He has also stated that he has no objection in compounding of the said offence and for setting aside of the judgments of both the Courts below. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 147 of the Act is a special Act which provides for non-obstante clause, stating: “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.” Indisputably, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 would be applicable to the proceedings pending before the Courts for trial of offences under the said Act. Stricto sensu, however, the table appended to Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not attracted as the provisions mentioned therein refer only to provisions of the Penal Code and none other. In view of the facts as mentioned above, complainant in terms of the compromise settled between the parties has received the amount in dispute and he has no grouse against the petitioner and also for compounding of the said offence and even for setting aside the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court. It has been observed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Mrs. Crl.Revision No. 2057 of 2010 [4] Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney (1980)1 SCC 63 that “the finest Hour of Justice arrives propitiously when the parties, despite following apart bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion.” Relying on the views adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Five Judges Bench of this Court also observed in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 2007(3) R.C.R. (Cri) 1052 that compounding of offence which are not compoundable under Section 320(9) Cr.P.C., offence non-compoundable but parties entering into compromise, High Court has the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offences and quash the prosecution where the High Court felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. Since the matter has been compromised between the parties and complainant has no objection in compounding of the offence and in setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court and upheld by the appellate Court, the present revision petitions bearing No. 2057 of 2010, 2058 of 2010 and 2060 of 2010 are allowed and judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court are set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE September 6, 2010. raghav Crl.Revision No. 2057 of 2010 [5]