IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) When cheque dishonoured, person who drawn cheque, deemed to have committed offence and becomes liable for punishment of imprisonment.
(2) When stated that offence compoundable, necessarily there two parties; one accused and other complainant/affected party, against whom offence committed.

A.I.S. Cheema, J.—These Criminal Writ Petitions have been taken up for final hearing on admission stage with consent of counsel for petitioner and learned A.P.P. for State.

(A) Criminal Writ Petition No.196/2014 is arising out of order dated 23.12.2013, passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 2nd Court, Jalgaon below Exhibits 66 and 68 in S.C.C. No.1858/2006, which order has been maintained by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, vide judgment and order dated 9.1.2014, passed in Criminal Revision Application No.13/2014.

(B) Criminal Writ Petition No.197/2014 is arising out of order dated 23.12.2013, passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 2nd Court, Jalgaon below Exhibits 67 and 69 in S.C.C. No. 1961/2006, which order has been maintained by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon vide order dated 9.1.2014, in Criminal Revision Application No.11/2014.

(C) Criminal Writ Petition No.198/2014 is arising out of order dated 23.12.2013, passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 2nd Court, Jalgaon below Exhibits 78 and 80 in S.C.C. No. 1729/2006, which order has been maintained by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon vide order dated 9.1.2014, in Criminal Revision Application No.12/2014

2. In the trial Court, the summary criminal cases mentioned above are pending between the present petitioner and respondent No.2 B.R. System, Jalgaon B.R. Traders, Jalgaon. The complaints have been filed by B.R. System and B.R. Traders, and present petitioner is accused. Similar applications were moved in the three matters and similar facts relevant for present decision are involved and similar orders are there leading to the present Writ Petitions.

3. For the convenience of understanding the dispute, I am referring to the facts in detail from the record of Criminal Writ Petition No.196/2014.

4. The petitioner- accused claims that, the respondent No.2 has filed the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which is pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. In the complaint, it is alleged that, due to business relationship, against goods sold on credit, petitioner accused had issued cheque as mentioned in the complaint for the amount stated. The cheque was dishonoured and notice of demand was issued and as in spite of notice petitioners accused failed to comply, the complaint came to be filed.

5. The petitioner claims that, there was oral compromise with complainant in 2008 and the petitioner deposited the amount of cheque by filing application Ex. 34 and the complainant accepted the amount. According to petitioner, on 21.1.2013, he filed application Ex. 66 under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. for short), claiming that he has already paid the amount of cheque to complainant which has been accepted by the complainant and the whole amount of the cheque has been covered as per oral compromise with the complainant. It was claimed that, still the complainant is not withdrawing the complaint and so, the petitioner accused should be discharged. The claim of the petitioner was resisted by the respondent No.2 complainant. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class rejected the application. On 17.4.2013, the petitioner accused filed another application vide Ex. 68 under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, claiming that the complaint be disposed holding that there is compromise which took place between the petitioner and respondent No.2 as he has repaid the amount of cheque which has been accepted by the complainant. In the present petition, it is claimed that the complainant resisted the application and Judicial Magistrate, First Class illegally dismissed the said application. Petitioner accused then filed Revision Application against the rejection of applications Ex.66 and 68. The petitioner contended that he is ready to pay amount of fine also, still the Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision application. Thus, the present Writ Petitions.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the pe