IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Rev.2579 of 2008 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : DECEMBER 17, 2008 SIKANDER VERMA & ANR. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Ishwar Lal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. HS Brar, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate, for respondent No.2. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) CRM 57927 of 2008 This application has been filed under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer that the main case (Criminal Revision No.2579 of 2008) be taken up for hearing today. The other prayer made is that impugned judgment dated 26.7.2006, passed by the trial court and judgment dated 26.11.2008, passed by the appellate court, be set aside in view of the fact that the disputes have been settled and the offence is compoundable under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant has already been paid the cheque amount to Criminal Rev.2579 of 2008 (O&M) 2 his entire satisfaction. The application is allowed. Main case (Criminal Revision No.2579 of 2008) is taken up for hearing, with the concurrence of both the sides. Criminal Revision No.2579 of 2008 Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khanna, vide judgment dated 26.7.2006 convicted petitioner No.1/accused for committing an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act'). Vide order of sentence of even date, petitioner No.1/accused has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years with fine of Rs.5,000/-; in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. A sum of Rs.30,000/- has also been awarded as compensation to be paid to the complainant; in default of payment of compensation, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. An appeal was carried, which has been dismissed vide judgment dated 26.11.2008. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence have been maintained. It has been pointed out that vide document executed on 1.12.2008 (Annexure P-1), the parties have settled all their disputes with the intervention of respectables and elders in the society. The issue in respect of cheque bearing No.438072 dated 20.12.2004, in the sum of Rs.8 lacs, has been settled. Respondent No.2-complainant, as identified by his counsel Shri Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate, is present in person. The complainant Criminal Rev.2579 of 2008 (O&M) 3 states that, indeed, the disputes have been settled and the cheque amount has been received by him. The complainant, now, does not have any grievance against the petitioners and would support if the offence is compounded. I have considered the issue. Section 147 of the Act provides that every offence punishable under the Act shall be compoundable. The matter has been considered by the the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Vinay Devanna Nayak v. Ryot Sewa Sahakari Bank Ltd., (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 305, and it has been held as under:- “17. As observed by this Court in Electronics Trade & Technology Development Corpn. Ltd. v. Indian Technologists & Engineers (Electronics) (P) Ltd., (1996) 2 SCC 739, the object of bringing Section 138 in the statute book is to inculcate faith in the efficacy of banking operations and credibility in transacting business on negotiable instruments. The provision is intended to prevent dishonesty on the part of the drawer of negotiable instruments in issuing cheques without sufficient funds or with a view to inducing the payee or holder in due course to act upon it. It thus seeks to promote the efficacy of bank operations and ensures credibility in transacting business through cheques. In such matters, therefore, normally compounding of offences should not be denied. Presumably, Parliament also realized this aspect and inserted Section 147 by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act,2002. (ACT 55 of 2002). The said section reads thus: “147. Offences to be compoundable.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every offence Criminal Rev.2579 of 2008 (O&M) 4 punishable under this Act shall be compoundable.” 18. Taking into consideration even the said provision (Section 147) and the primary object underlying Section 138, in our judgment, there is no reason to refuse compromise between the parties. We, therefore, dispose of the appeal on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the appellant and the respondent. 19. For the foregoing reasons the appeal deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed by holding that since the matter has been compromised between the parties and the amount of Rs.45,000/- has been paid by the appellant towards full and final settlement to the respondent-bank towards its dues, the appellant is entitled to acquittal. The order of conviction and sentence recorded by all courts is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge levelled against him.” Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it transpires that the cheque amount has already been paid by the accused to the complainant. The complainant has recorded his satisfaction and supported the plea raised on behalf of the accused for compounding of the offence. In view of the above, the revision petition is disposed of on the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the courts below is set aside and the accused/petitioner No.1 is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. December 17, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE