CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2793 OF 2011 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: DECEMBER 09, 2011 Suresh Kumar .....Petitioner VERSUS Megma Leasing Limited, Bathinda and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Raman Chawla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, DAG, Punjab, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Petitioner-Suresh Kumar stands convicted for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and directed to suffer sentence of one year RI coupled with fine of `1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was further required to undergo one month RI. The petitioner remained unsuccessful in his appeal and has now CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2793 OF 2011 :{ 2 }: impugned his conviction and sentence by filing the present revision petition. Mention to facts in detail may not be needed as now the petitioner has entered into a compromise with the respondent-complainant. One fact, however, may need notice that the petitioner had taken a loan for a vehicle, which got stolen. The copy of the compromise has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1, which is a letter written by Megma Finance Corporation Limited, Kalkota. It is mentioned in the letter that in view of the exceptional circumstances, the Company has confirmed acceptance of `2,90,000/- as full and final settlement of the above mentioned proposal. The amount was payable by way of cash on or before 30.8.2011. The petitioner has now paid the amount and copy of receipt in this regard has been annexed with the petition is Annexure P-2. Notice of motion was issued in this case. Counsel for the respondent-complainant has appeared and has confirmed that indeed the matter has been compromised and the complainant would not have any objection in case the petitioner is relieved of the consequences of conviction and sentence standing against him. This Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction will have power to permit compounding of offence. To permit compounding at this stage, support can be had from CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2793 OF 2011 :{ 3 }: Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H., 2010(2) RCR (Crl.) 851, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the method to discourage the litigation by permitting compounding of offences. There is no dispute that the compounding at the stage of revision can also be permitted under Section 320(8) of the Cr.P.C. Since the parties have compromised this matter and has settled, which primarily was a responsibility to discharge the liability arising on account of money received to finance the vehicle, the conviction of the petitioner would call for interference. The principle underlying under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C. has been recognized by Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in such cases had permitted the compounding of offence by invoking the provisions of Section 147 of the abovesaid Act. Thus, compounding in this case can be permitted in view of the facts and circumstances as noticed. As a result, the revision petition is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner is set- aside. December 09, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE