Criminal Revision No.928 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.928 of 2008. Date of decision:-20.5.2008. M/s Nikhil Enterprises ...Petitioner. Versus M/s Shikant Enterprises and another ...Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present:- Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjeev Peter, Advocate for respondent No.1. RAJESH BINDAL J. The petitioner has filed the present revision before this court against the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhari at Yamuna Nagar whereby the conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') was upheld vide judgment dated May 12, 2008. The petitioner is in custody since then. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the conviction of the petitioner, the dispute with respondent No.1-complainant has been settled and a compromise has been arrived at between the parties on May 17, 2008. In terms of compromise on receipt of a sum of Rs. 1,26,000/- as full and final settlement of the amount due from the petitioner to the complainant, the respondent No.1-complainant stated that he will not have any objection in case the conviction and sentence of the petitioner is set aside. Referring to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Criminal Revision No.928 of 2008 -2- Vinay Devanna Nayak V. Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd. 2007(5) Law Herald (SC) 3483, the submission is that once the dispute with the respondent No.1 had been settled, the offence is compoundable and accordingly conviction and sentence of the petitioner be set aside. A copy of the compromise in original submitted in the court is taken on record as Mark-'A'. Respondent No.1-complainant Parveen Garg has also appeared in person in court, who has been identified by his counsel Shri Sanjeev Peter. He has submitted his PAN card issued under the Income Tax Act, 1961 with permanent account No. AAYPG3703C and also a copy of the ration card. He admitted the factum of compromise of the dispute between the parties. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the compromise placed on record and also the statement made by the respondent No.1- complainant in court. Once the dispute between the parties has been settled and in terms thereof the petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs. 1,26,000/- to the respondent No.1-complainant as full and final settlement of his claim, in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinay Devanna Nayak's case (supra) the offence committed by the petitioner, for which he has been convicted is compoundable. Relevant paras therefrom are extracted below:- 17. “As observed by this Court in Electronic Trade & Technology Development Corporation Ltd. v. Indian Technologists & Engineers, (1996) 2 SCC 739, the object of bringing Section 138 in the statute book is to inculcate faith in the efficacy of banking operations and credibility in transacting business on negotiable instruments. The provision is intended to prevent Criminal Revision No.928 of 2008 -3- dishonesty on the part of the drawer of negotiable instruments in issuing cheques without sufficient funds or with a view to inducing the payee or holder in due course to act upon it. It thus seeks to promote the efficacy of bank operations and ensures credibility in transacting business through cheques. In such matters, therefore, normally compounding of offences should not be denied. Presumably, Parliament also realised this aspect and inserted Section 147 by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002. (Act 55 of 2002). The said section reads thus: S.147. Offences to be compoundable - Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable. 18. Taking into consideration even the said provision (Section 147) and the primary object underlying Section 138, in our judgment, there is no reason to refuse compromise between the parties. We, therefore, dispose of the appeal on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the appellant and the respondent. 19. For the foregoing reasons the appeal deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed by holding that since the matter has been compromised between the parties Criminal Revision No.928 of 2008 -4- and the amount of Rs.45,000/- has been paid by the appellant towards full and final settlement to the respondent-bank towards its dues, the appellant is entitled to acquittal. The order of conviction and sentence recorded by all courts is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge levelled against him.” Hon'ble the Supreme Court in 2008 (2) Criminal Court Cases 233 (R.Rajeshwari v/s H.N.Jagdish) opined that table appended to Section 320 Cr.P.C. is not attracted for offences under the Act as Section 147 thereof gives it overriding effect as the same provides for a non obstente clause, Stricto senso, however, the table appended to Section 320 Cr.P.C. is not attracted as the provisions mentioned therein refer only to provisions of IPC and none other. It is further held that even a compromise arrived at by the advocate of the party, authorised to do so, is binding on the party concerned. In view of settlement of dispute between the parties, the offence and conviction is compoundable, accordingly, it is directed that the order of conviction and sentence awarded by the Courts below in the case of the petitioner is set aside and he is acquitted of the charges against him. The petitioner be released from the custody forthwith. The petition is disposed of accordingly. May 20, 2008. (RAJESH BINDAL) asija JUDGE