IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 823 of 2008 Mohd. Faizan S/o Mohd. Iqbal …… Petitioner Versus Afzal S/o Nazeer Hasan …. Respondent Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocate for the respondent. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocate for the respondent. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being taken up today for final disposal at the motion hearing stage without it being formally admitted for hearing. 3. This petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing and setting aside the summoning order dated 17/01/2000 passed by the Upper Civil Judge (Senior Division)/A.C.J.M. Roorkee in Case No. 12 of 2000 (Case No.458 of 2006) Afzal Vs. Faizan u/s 138 of the N.I.Act, Police Station Kotwali, Manglaur, District Haridwar. 4. A complaint u/s 138 of the N.I.Act was filed by the respondent before the Magistrate and the learned Magistrate after trial of the case convicted the applicant for a penalty of Rs. 1200/-. Thereafter, the respondent preferred the revision and the Revisional Court held that the punishment is inadequate as the cheque amounting to Rs. 30,000/- was dishonored by the bank. As such, the case was remanded to the trial court and the trial court was directed to hear the parties on the point of sentence and pass the suitable order. Thereafter, the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and a compounding application alongwith the compromise was filed before the trial court. The trial court after hearing the parties did not pass any speaking order and only kept on record. Feeling aggrieved by the said, the present petition has been preferred before this Court. 5. It is not disputed that in view of Section 147 of the N.I. Act, the offence is compoundable. The matter can be compounded at any time. The trial court instead of keeping the compromise on record, should have proceeded in accordance with the law and should have passed the order in terms of the compromise if it would have been verified that the parties have amicable settled their dispute in accordance with the law. 6. It would be expedient in the interest of justice to direct the Trial Court to record the compromise in terms of Section 147 of the N.I. Act and pass the suitable order in the said compromise accordingly, Irrespective of the fact that the appellate court has directed to hear both the parties once again in the matter of sentence only. 7. The petition is disposed of accordingly. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) 18.12.2008 Shiv