Criminal Revision No.3085 of 2011(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.3085 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: December 09, 2011 Lovleen Kaur ... Petitioner Versus Baljinder Kaur and another ... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr.Rahul Rampal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Baljinder Kaur – complainant/respondent No.1 with her counsel Mr.Arun Gosain, Advocate. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This revision is directed against the judgment dated December 02 nd, 2011 passed by Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated July 13 th, 2010 of Special Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, whereby, petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'N.I. Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation in complaint No.886-A dated March 11 th, 2008 titled “Baljinder Kaur vs. Lovleen Kaur”. 2. Notice of motion. 3. Baljinder Kaur – complainant/respondent No.2, is present in person with her counsel Mr.Arun Gosain, Advocate. She has accepted the notice. 4. Learned counsel for the parties have urged that after decision of the appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, the matter has been compromised between the parties. Affidavit of Baljinder Kaur (Annexure P1) has been placed on record. Baljinder Kaur – Criminal Revision No.3085 of 2011(O&M) [2] complainant has stated at bar that the matter has been compromised and she has received the entire payment. In 'Vinay Devanna Nayak Vs. Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Limited' 2008 (1) RCR (Criminal) 249, Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the compromise entered between the parties in view of Section 147 of N.I. Act and the primary object underlying Section 138 and acquitted the accused/appellant. 5. Since the matter has been settled between the parties and in view of provisions of Section 147 of N.I. Act and law laid down in the aforesaid authority, the revisionist is entitled to acquittal. Resultantly, the revision is accepted and the orders of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below are set-aside and she is acquitted. The petitioner is in custody. She is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. December 09, 2011 ( NAWAB SINGH ) `gian' JUDGE