important Points
The table appended to Section 320, Stricto sensu, is not attracted to offences under NI Act.
Any settlement arrived at by the Advocate on behalf of a party to a lis would be binding on the parties thereto.
In view of section 362 of Cr. P.C. a judgment of conviction and sentence, once passed, could not be modified by the High Court and therefore, ordinarily, exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 would be unwarranted.

judgment

S.B. Sinha, J. —

1.Leave granted.

2.Interpretation of the provisions of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, vis-‘-vis Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is involved in this appeal which arises out of judgments and orders dated 5.9.2005 and 27.1.2006 passed by the High Court of Karnataka.

3.The aforementioned orders were passed in the following factual matrix :

4.Appellant filed a complaint petition against the respondent herein, inter alia, alleging that he had advanced a sum of Rs.4,35,000/-. For the purpose of repayment therefor, five cheques were issued. Three cheques were honoured but two were dishonoured. The subject matter of the complaint petition was a cheque issued by the respondent for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- which was presented to the bank on 15.9.1996. Appellant was informed in regard to the dishonour of the cheque on 28.9.1996. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, by a judgment and order dated 1.6.2000, found the respondent guilty for commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. It was directed that out of the said amount of compensation, a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- may be paid to the appellant herein.

5.An appeal was preferred thereagainst and by a judgment and order dated 14.2.2003, the XXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City dismissed the criminal appeal preferred by the respondent herein, inter alia, holding :

“I have perused the entire order of the trial Court. That the trial Court after considering all the evidence and material placed on record has rightly convicted the accused/appellant. The accused/appellant has not made out any case, so as to interfere with the order of the trial Court. The order of the trial Court is neither capricious nor mala fide. So, I feel it is not necessary to interfere with the order of the trial Court. The trial Court order deserves to be confirmed. In view of all the above said discussion, I answer the point No.1 in the negative.”

6.A Criminal Revision was filed thereagainst by the respondent before the High Court. It appears that counsel for the parties expressed their intention to settle the matter. On a prayer made in that behalf, the Revision Application was adjourned.

7.The parties allegedly entered into a compromise. A compromise petition was filed in terms of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the terms whereof are:

“1.With intravension of well wishers and friends the parties to the above case, have decided to settle their difference amicably.

2.The petitioner agreed to pay the cheque amount sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) accordingly the petitioner today is paying sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) in addition to the amount of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) already deposited in the above case in compliance of the interim order.

3.The respondent has agreed not to claim any other amount as determined by the court below and also withdraw his contention and the charges made against the petitioner before the trial court and has no objection to whatsoever to acquit the alleged offences.

4.The respondent further agreed that he will not making above case against the petitioner in any other case.

5.The petitioner and respondent set there hands to sought their difference amicably with the above terms and pray this Hon’ble Court pleased to acquit the petitioner as alleged of offences, for the ends of justice.”

8.The High Court, however, in the light of the said application and furthermore taking into consideration that a sum of Rs.75,000/- had already been deposited, directed :

“In the light of the application filed as an amount of Rs.75,000/- was already deposited, it is ordered to pay further sum of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant Smt. R. Rajeshwari and further to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- to the