Crl. R. No.1180 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. R. No.1180 of 2010 Date of Decision:03.05.2010 Raj Kumar .... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Anand Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. for the respondent -State Mr. Dinesh Kumar Jangra, Advocate for respondent No.2. -.- 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed against the judgement dated 15.02.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgement dated 12.02.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula, vide which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year along with a fine of Rs.4000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the petition, the matter has been compromised and, as such, allow the petitioner and the complainant to compound an offence under Crl. R. No.1180 of 2010 2 Section 138 of the Act. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit of Manmohan Singh-complainant stating therein that the matter has been compromised and he has no objection if the present revision petition is allowed to be compounded. The same is taken on record. Further, a separate statement of the complainant to that effect has also been got recorded in the Court. In his statement, he has stated that he has received the payment of the dishonoured cheque from the accused petitioner and, as such, he has no objection if the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge. In view of the above, it is clear that the during the pendency of the revision petition, the matter has been compromised between the parties Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act reproduced as under: “147. Offence to be compoundable.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), very offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable.” Reliance has been placed on the judgement passed by this Court in the case of Ritesh Gupta v. State of Punjab and another 2009(3) R.C.R (Criminal) 61 whereby this Court has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of O.P Dholakia v. State of Haryana and another, (2000) 1 SCC 762 wherein the Apex Court was pleased to allow the accused and the complainant to compound an offence under Section 138 of the Act despite conviction and sentence having been held by three Forums. In view of the compromise, the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Act was annulled. Crl. R. No.1180 of 2010 3 Accordingly, in view of the compromise having been arrived at between the parties and statement of the complainant recorded separately stating that he has no objection if the petitioner is acquitted, the parties are allowed to compound the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court vide judgment and order dated 12.02.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula which was confirmed by the lower Appellate Court vide judgment dated 15.02.2010 is set aside and the petitioner is accordingly acquitted of the aforesaid charge. Revision petition is accordingly allowed as above. 03.05.2010 (NIRMALJIT KAUR) mohan JUDGE