1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 921 of 2008 Date of Decision: 27.5.2008 *** Anil Kumar Malik .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Mandeep Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Sra, DAG Punjab. Complainant Kulwinder Singh in person with Sh. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Admitted. The petitioner was tried by the learned Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act with the allegations that in order to discharge his liability he issued cheque No. 940239 dated 19.6.2002 for an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- in favour of the complainant, which on presentation was dishonoured. On conclusion of trial, the charges against the petitioner were found proved by the learned trial court and accordingly he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, further sentence of 3 months was awarded. In addition thereto, compensation of Rs.2 lacs was also awarded to the complainant as envisaged under Section 357 Cr.P.C. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the 2 learned appellate Court and aggrieved with the same, the petitioner preferred the instant revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that during the pendency of the instant revision, the parties have entered into a settlement. The petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.5 lacs to the complainant. Upon notice, the complainant has also appeared in the Court in person and has stated that he has received the payment and has no objection if the matter is compounded. The subsequent events suggests that the parties have compromised the matter and as per their respective stand no further claim has remained towards the petitioner. Therefore, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has fully discharged his debt liability and following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Sailesh Shyam Parsekar v. Baban alias Vishwanath S. Godge and another, 2006 (4) RCR (Criminal) 841 and Electronic Trade & Technology Development Corporation Ltd. v. Indian Technologists & Engineers, 1996(1) RCR (Criminal) 592, this court is of the considered view that there is no impediment to invoke the powers under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and to compound the offence under challenge. Ordered accordingly. In the light of discussed above, both the judgments passed by the Courts below are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge. The complaint filed by the respondent-complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is accordingly disposed of as having become infructuous. The petitioner be set at liberty, if not required in any other case. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 27,2008 Jiten 3 Dissatisfied with the same, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal against the judgment of their conviction and sentence.