Criminal Revision No. 704 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 704 of 2008 Date of Decision: 25.04.2008 Harbhajan Singh ...Petitioner Versus Santokh Singh ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. A.S.Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. G.C.Rattan, Advocate, for the respondent. *** Rajesh Bindal, J. The petitioner has filed the present petition before this Court challenging his conviction by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jalandhar, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, which was upheld by the Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. The petitioner has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs. 5,000/-. On default of payment of fine he is to undergo further imprisonment for one month. The complaint in the present case was filed by him on account of dishonour of cheque of Rs. 43,000/- issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent. When the petition came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was ready and willing to discharge debt of the respondent to settle the dispute and prayed for compounding of the offence and setting aside of his conviction. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs. 43,000/- to the respondent as full and final settlement of his claim and accordingly, the offence be compounded and the conviction of the petitioner be set aside. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant admitted the factum of receipt of Rs. 43,000/- from the petitioner as full and Criminal Revision No. 704 of 2008 2 final settlement of his claim and very fairly submits that he has no objection in case the conviction of the petitioner is set aside. Once the parties have settled their dispute, in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Vinay Devanna Nayak v. Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd., 2007 (5) Law Herald (SC) 3843, 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 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 componding 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 Criminal Revision No. 704 of 2008 3 the matter has been compromised between the parties 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 from all the charges levelled against him. He is directed to be released from jail forthwith. The petition is disposed of. Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges. ( RAJESH BINDAL) April 25, 2008 JUDGE pj