Crl. Misc. No. A-767-MA of 2010 -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. A-767-MA of 2010 Date of Decision: 04.8.2011. Bharat Singh .......Appellant Vs. Om Parkash (Clerk) ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. R.A.Sheoran, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Pankaj Mehta, Advocate for the respondent. ..... SABINA, J. Respondent had faced the trial for an under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('Act' for short) on a complaint filed by the appellant. The trial court vide judgment dated 04.12.2008 ordered the conviction of the respondent for an offence under Section 138 of the Act. Vide order dated 5.12.2008, respondent was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of ` 3,000/- for commission of offence under Section 138 of the Act. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, respondent preferred an appeal. Vide order dated 18.2.2010, the appellate court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and acquitted the respondent of the notice of acquisition under Section 138 of the Act. Hence, the present application under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of leave to file an appeal by Crl. Misc. No. A-767-MA of 2010 -2 - the complainant. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present application deserves dismissal. Applicant-appellant had filed a complaint against the respondent on the allegation that a sum of ` 38,000/- had been borrowed from him by the respondent but he had failed to repay the loan amount. Thereafter, respondent had issued the cheque in question dated 25.8.2004 in favour of the applicant-appellant. However, when the cheque was presented for encashment, the same was dishonoured with the report of unsufficient funds. Hence, the complaint was filed by the applicant-appellant. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent had placed on record affidavit Mark-A, sworn by the applicant- appellant dated 18.8.2009. The said affidavit was put to the applicant-appellant and he admitted his signatures on the same, as is evident from the order passed by the appellate court dated 30.10.2009. A perusal of the affidavit Mark-A reveals that that the applicant had stated therein that a compromise had been effected between him and the respondent. A perusal of the affidavit further reveals that compromise was effected between the parties qua both the cases filed by the applicant-appellant. Thus, compromise had been effected between the parties during the pendency of the appeal but the applicant-appellant had failed to bring the said fact to the notice of the court. The offence under Section 138 of the Act is compoundable. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, learned appellate court had, thus, rightly allowed the appeal filed by the respondent. Hence, no ground for grant of leave to file an appeal is Crl. Misc. No. A-767-MA of 2010 -3 - made out. Consequently, the application is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 04, 2011 Gurpreet