P.K. Bhasin, J.—The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for impugning the common order dated 19.9.2006 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate in respect of four complaints filed by the petitioner-complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) against the respondent herein whereby all the four complaints were disposed of as having been compounded. Since the order under challenge is same one in all these petitions and the point involved is also common the same were heard together and now shall also be disposing of the four petitions by a common order.

2. Factual matrix necessary for the disposal of the present petitions is that the petitioner-complainant is engaged in the business of Chit Funds Respondent became member of some Chit Groups and towards discharge of his liability in respect of those Chits he issued several cheques of the total value of Rs. 2,03,500 in favour of the petitioner but on presentment to his bank all the cheques were dishonoured. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed four complaints under Section 138 of the Act. The respondent on being summoned by the trial Court entered appearance and contested the complaints which were in due course clubbed together.

3. During the pendency of the complaints, the respondent, however, showed his inclination to settle the matter with the petitioner-complainant by moving an application on 25.4.2006. It has been averred in these petitions that the respondent had agreed outside the Court to pay Rs. 1,50,000 towards full and final settlement of the amounts involved in all the four cases and also paid Rs. 60,000 to the petitioner as part payment and so the case was adjourned to 19.9.2006. However on that date of hearing when complainant intimated the Court about the aforesaid settlement the respondent backed out and claimed that the settlement was for Rs. 1,00,000 in all and that he was willing to pay the balance amount of Rs.40,000. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate then directed the complainant to return the amount of Rs. 60,000 to the respondent which he declined upon which the trial Court passed the impugned common order disposing of the four complaints as having been compounded relying upon a judgment of this Court reported as 2004 (1) JCC (N.I.) 44.1

4. Aggrieved by the said order dated 19.6.2006, the petitioner has filed these four petitions alleging therein that since there was no consensus between the parties in respect of the terms of the settlement and which was not even got recorded in Court or otherwise reduced into writing outside the Court, the trial Court was not justified in treating the cases as compounded and that reliance on the judgment of this Court in 2004 (1) JCC (N.I). 44 was placed erroneously.

5. Notice of these petitions was issued to the respondent who, however, did not enter appearance despite having been served with the notice. So, I heard the counsel, for the petitioner only.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner I have unhesitatingly come to the conclusion that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. From the averments made in these petitions and also from a perusal of the impugned order it becomes apparent that there was no consensus between the parties as to the amount which the respondent had agreed to pay to the complainant as a result of the alleged compromise. The so-called understanding between the parties was not arrived at before the Court nor was it reduced into writing. So, the learned trial Court could not have taken note of any compromise and also could not have asked the complainant to return the money received by it as part payment of the total agreed amount which according to it was Rs. l,50,000. Apart from this, the impugned order is liable to be set aside also for the reason that the offence under Section 138 of the Act has not been made compoundable unde