IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CRL Rev. No.1634 of 2004 Date of Decision: January 21, 2009 Jagan Nath ...........Petitioner Versus Ashwani Sharma ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Rohit Ahuja, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.P.S.Saini, Advocate for the respondent. Sabina, J. Petitioner-Jagan Nath was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short `the Act) vide judgment dated 17.3.2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Faridabad and vide order dated 5.4.2004, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and was directed to pay the cheque amount as compensation to the complainant. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal. Vide judgment dated 7.8.2004, the appeal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge (I), Faridabad. Hence, the present revision petition. During the pendency of the petition, parties have amicably settled the dispute vide compromise (Annexure A1) dated 23.6.2008 . As per the compromise, it was agreed between the parties that the petitioner would pay in all Rupees five lacs to the complainant. Rupees two lacs were paid to the complainant at the time of compromise vide a demand draft. Today, the demand draft bearing No. 627262 dated 20.1.2009 in the sum of Rupees three lacs has been handed over to the complainant, who is present in Court CRL Rev. No.1634 of 2004 -2- in person. Complainant has given an affidavit that he had no objection, if the criminal appeal is disposed of as per compromise. In the compromise (Annexure A1), it has been stated that the complainant had no objection if the conviction of the appellant is set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Vinay Devanna Nayak vs. Ryot Seva Sahakari Ban Ltd. 2008 (1) RCR (Criminal ) 249. As per Section 147 of the Act, every offence under the Act shall be compoundable. Keeping in view the fact that the parties have arrived at a compromise and want to live in peace and the amount as per compromise had been paid to the complainant, it would be just and expedient to allow the parties to compound the offence at this stage. Accordingly, in view of the compromise, this appeal is allowed. Judgments of both the Courts below are set aside. Petitioner is acquitted of the charge framed against him. ( Sabina ) Judge January 21, 2009 arya