1. At first hearing, this Court had called Record & Proceedings and had orally put the parties to oral notice that the petition would be taken up for final disposal.

2. The case was adjourned twice to see if settlement is likely, but no settlement took place and hence petition is heard.

3. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and is heard by consent.

4. In the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Magistrate ordered issue of process after recording complainant's statement on oath, on perusal of documents, and upon recording satisfaction for doing so.

5. Order of issue of process was challenged before Sessions Court. Various grounds were raised. Sessions Court has heard and decided Revision Application and rejected it.

6. In this Court, order of issue of process and one passed dismissing Revision are challenged.

7. Learned Adv., Mr. Sadavarte states that by taking leave of the Court, he has deposited a sum of Rs.30,000-00 towards the amount of cheque. According to him, soon after the accused suo moto appeared, he had submitted an application before Trial Court seeking permission to deposit the amount, however, said application was rejected by the Trial Court. Therefore, the accused has availed of said concession by making a request to this Court for the same purpose. According to him, in the background of plea

of the accused that he has not been served with the notice by the complainant about dishonour of cheque, upon deposit of amount of cheque, the accused would be absolved of a liability to face a criminal trial as the purpose of filing of the criminal complaint would cease to exist.

8. Mr. Sadavarte has also offered that in addition to amount of Rs.30,000-00 deposited in this Court, the applicant is ready and willing to pay an additional sum of Rs.25,000-00 towards compensation and interest in lump-sum, and that a Demand Draft for said sum is ready. This offer for compensation is not acceded by learned Advocate for the respondent, contending that said option can remain opensubject to trial. This is a conditional acceptance andhence no orders on petitioner's oral prayer are necessary.

9. Perused record. Heard both sides.

10. Learned Advocate Mr. Sadavarte during submissions emphasized as a challenge to order of issue of process on the ground that the complainant has not demonstrated that the complaint is within limitation from the date of receipt of intimation of dishonour from the Bank and date of notice.

11. Learned Advocate Mr. Sadavarte has placed reliance on various reported judgments and points emerging therefrom. Most of those points are argued for the first time in this Court. The judgments relied upon and the discussion thereon are as follows:-

[1] C.C. Alavi Haji Vs. Palapetty Muhammed & Anr. [2007 ALL MR (Cri) 2044 (SC)],

[2] Vinay Devanna Nayak Vs. Ryot Sewa Sahakari Bank Ltd. [(2008) 2 SCC 305],

[3] Jeetendra Anthony Fernandes Vs. Hathway Cable & Datacom Pvt. Ltd. & anr. [2008 All MR (Cri) 1262],

[4] Sathyan Ayyappa Sathyan Vs. Yousu & anr. [2008 All MR (Cri) Journal 13], and

[5] Suman Sethi Vs. Ajay K. Churiwal & another [AIR 2000 SC 828].

12. Relying on C.C. Alavi Haji Vs. Palapetty Muhammed & anr. (supra), it is urged that the cases where the drawer pleads that the notice of dishonour was not served on him, he would be absolved of criminal liability, would he offer to pay the amount through the cheque, subjectmatter, within fifteen days from the receipt of summons accompanied by a copy of complaint, and in that case, the complaint be rejected.

13. Remaining four judgments mentioned in para No.11 are relied to urge that it would be permissible and desirable to grant compounding of the case in relation to a dishonoured cheque, if a reasonable and fair compensation is paid. This reliance is in support of submission orally advanced by learned Advocate Mr. Sadavarte referred to in para nod. 7 and 8 foregoing.

14. Learned Advocate Mr. Bajaj has opposed the application, urging various gr