IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 5331 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 21.12.2011 Balkrishan Baweja ...Petitioner Versus Bansi Dhar ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. C.L. Sharma , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate and Mr. Sandeep Gahlawat, Advocate for the respondent. ***** RANJIT SINGH J. This order shall dispose of Crl. Misc. Nos. M- 5330 and 5331 of 2011. The appeal against the conviction filed by the petitioner is pending in the appellate Court. During the pendency of appeal, the petitioner moved an application with the prayer that he is ready to pay the total cheque amount. This prayer is declined by the appellate Court on the ground that it is not acceptable to the respondent/ complainant. Against that order, the present revision is directed. This is not even the case, which rests on any compromise. The compounding of offences can be permitted if the complainant agrees for compounding. If the respondent/complainant is not accepting the compromise as offered by the petitioner, court cannot force a compounding. Even otherwise, appeal is still pending. It would not be appropriate to interfere in the case at this stage when appeal is pending adjudication. The offence of which the Crl. Misc. No. M- 5331 of 2011 (O&M) -2- petitioner is convicted is a compoundable offence as per Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This plea can be raised before the appellate Court as well. The petitioner has invited this order after moving an application. The petitioner has to first seek adjudication of his appeal on merits. No case for involving revisional jurisdiction is made out at this stage. Dismissed. December 21, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE