IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1575 of 2007 Date of decision: 23.4.2008. Paramjit Kaur ….Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab and another …Respondent. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. N.S. Dandiwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab. Mr. M.K. Garg, Advocate for the complainant. RAJESH BINDAL J. The petitioner has filed the present petition before this Court challenging her conviction by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Moga under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short the Act) which was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Moga. The petitioner had been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 8 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine she was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. The complainant was awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 2000/- under section 357(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The complaint in the present case was filed by respondent No.2 alleging that the petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from respondent No.2, which she was required to pay along with interest and for which a cheque of Rs. 62,000/- was issued in favour of respondent No.2 which was returned by the Banker of the petitioner uncleared. At the time of motion hearing, on 30.8.2007 learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to discharge the entire liability of respondent No.2. On 15.11.2007 the petitioner brought a banker’s Cheque No. 147808 dated 14.11.2007 for a sum of Rs. 62,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, G.T. Road, Moga. The cheque was handed over to the counsel for the respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the petitioner had already cleared the amount of the cheque, her conviction be set aside. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that as a claim of the complainant has been settled, he does not have any objection to setting aside of the conviction of the petitioner. It is further submitted by the counsel for the parties that in terms of the settlement, one complaint filed by the petitioner against respondent No.2 in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga bearing complaint No. 176 dated 7.4.2004 under Sections 354, 323, 382, 427, 506 IPC has already been withdrawn by the petitioner on 17.3.2008. Copy of order has been produced in Court today. Once the parties have settled their dispute, in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinay Devanna Nayak v. Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd., 2007 (5) Law Herald (SC), 3843 offence committed by the petitioner for which she was convicted is compoundable. Accordingly it is directed that the orders of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below in the case of petitioner are set aside. She is acquitted from all the charges levelled against her. The petition is disposed of. (RAJESH BINDAL) APRIL 23, 2008 JUDGE ritu-II