Crl. M No. M 28449 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. M No. M 28449 of 2010 Date of Decision:27.01.2011 Mrs Vishwa Kirti .... Petitioner Versus Krishna Financiers and others .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Tarunvir Vashisht, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Atul Jain, Advocate for the respondents Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab for respondent No. 3 -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of complaint No. 245 T dated 15.03.2001 (P1) titled as M/s Krishna Financiers and another v. Mrs. Vishwakirti and order dated 15.09.2010 (P2) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Patiala, vide which his application to compound the offence was dismissed. The petitioner is convicted for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by the trial court vide order dated 13.05.2008. The appeal against the said order of conviction is pending before the Appellate Crl. M No. M 28449 of 2010 2 Court. . During the pendency of the petition, the matter was compromised between the parties. On 04.02.2011, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 stated that in case, the petitioner was ready to pay the total amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, respondent No. 1 shall have no objection in compounding the offence. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned for today to enable the petitioner to make the said payment. In pursuance to the same, learned counsel for the petitioner has brought a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash in Court today. The same was duly received by respondent No. 1. To that effect, statement of respondent - Hans Raj Mehta son of Kishan Chand was recorded. In his statement, he has stated that the aforesaid complaint was filed by him against the present petitioner being the attorney of Mrs. Ram Piari widow of late Krishan Chand. It is further stated that the matter has been compromised. In pursuance of the same, he has received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash in the Court itself. As such, he has no objection if the said complaint is quashed. In view of the above, it is clear that the during the pendency of the 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 judgment passed by this Court in the case of Ritesh Gupta v. State of Punjab and another 2009(3) R.C.R Crl. M No. M 28449 of 2010 3 (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. 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 complaint is quashed, the parties are allowed to compound the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. As such, the present petition is allowed and the parties are directed to appear before the appellate Court where the appeal is pending against the judgment dated 13.05.2008 convicting the petitioner. The appellate Court shall accordingly pass the order in appeal in view of the permission granted by the Court to compound the offence. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 27.01.2011 mohan