Criminal Revision No.2469 of 2010(O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2469 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision:- September 9, 2010 Mrs.Vishwa Kirti ...Petitioner Versus Krishna Financers and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present:- Mr.Tarunveer Vashist, Advocate for the petitioner. ……. RAM CHAND GUPTA J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short `Cr.P.C.’) against order dated 27.8.2010, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide which application filed by revision petitioner for permission to compound the offence was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and have gone through the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. A perusal of the impugned order shows that appeal was pending before learned Additional Sessions Judge against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.5.2008 passed by learned trial Court convicting the present revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short the `Act’) and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Revision petitioner had taken the plea that blank cheque 1 Criminal Revision No.2469 of 2010(O&M) was given as a security for re-payment of loan of Rs.25,000/- borrowed by her and that she is ready to compound the offence and deposit the amount of Rs.25,000/-. The petitioner also offered to deposit Rs.3750/-, i.e., 15% of the amount of cheque as per law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Praphu v. Sayed Babalal 2010 (2) RCR (Criminal) 851. However, respondent – complaint was not ready to compound the offence as the cheque in question is dated 3.1.2001. Law is well settled that respondent-complainant cannot be compelled to compound the offence on receipt of amount of cheque after about 9 years of the issuance of the same. The complaint was also instituted on 22.2.2001. Respondent- complainant has been pursuing these proceedings since the year 2001. Hence, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned Additional Sessions Judge declining the request of revision petitioner for compounding the offence as respondent-complainant was not ready to compound the same for the amount of cheque only, i.e., Rs.25,000/-. Hence, as no illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Additional Sessions judge in passing the impugned order, warranting interference by this Court, there is no merit in this revision petition. However, it has been contended by learned counsel for the revision-petitioner that petitioner is ready to pay to respondent- complainant double the amount of the cheque more, i.e., Rs.50,000/- more and ready to compound the offence. He has also placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Nancy Bhakoo v. Gulzar Singh 2010 (2) Criminal Court Cases 837, in which taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case, and the fact that the complainant in that case was a money lender and had already filed many similar complaints, the complaint was ordered to be quashed on payment of the amount of cheque and double the amount of the cheque. However, no such offer was given by the present revision petitioner to the complainant before learned Additional Sessions Judge, where appeal is pending. Hence, revision petitioner may 2 Criminal Revision No.2469 of 2010(O&M) make this offer before learned Additional Sessions Judge, where appeal is pending, if so advised. In view of these facts, there is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed. September 9, 2010 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) meenu JUDGE 3