The main legal point established in the judgment is that the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is a compoundable offence, and the court can compound the offence based on the settlement between the parties, as per the guidelines framed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

P.S. TEJI, J.

1. By the aforesaid two separate revision petitions filed under Section 397/401 read with Section 482 of Cr. P.C., the petitioner seeks to challenge the order of conviction dated 19.09.2015 and 24.09.2015 respectively, passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, against which the petitioner also preferred two separate appeals being Appeal Nos. 42 and 43 of 2015 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-02/FTC, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, Delhi and in consequence thereto, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had dismissed the appeals vide order dated 16.12.2015, upholding the judgment and order on sentence passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate.

2. Since both the revision petitions arise out of a common order and judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge as well as learned Metropolitan Magistrate, therefore both the petitions are heard together and are being disposed of together.

3. In nutshell, the brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had asked friendly loan of Rs.5 lacs in the month of August 2010 but the respondent No.2/Complainant somehow could arrange only Rs.3,80,000/-and paid the same through five separate cheques. The petitioner assured the respondent No. 2 that he would repay the same within a period of six months. In the month of March 2013, the petitioner called the respondent No. 2 and handed over six post dated cheques in lieu of repayment of his loan amount. All the cheques were dishonoured with the remarks ‘insufficient funds’. Respondent No. 2 sent notice and the petitioner failed to comply with the terms of the notice. Accordingly, two separate criminal complaints under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were filed. Notice under Section 251 of Cr. P.C. was issued to the petitioner. Trial commenced, evidence were lead by both the sides and ultimately the trial of the case concluded in conviction of the petitioner. The petitioner also challenged the judgment and order on sentence before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, by way of two separate appeals, which were also dismissed by a common order dated 16.12.2015.

4. While considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has passed the impugned order of conviction and order on sentence, against which the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which has also been dismissed while upholding the orders passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition.

5. At the outset, Mr. Dalip Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the orders passed by the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court on merit, however it is contended that even at the appellate stage, the petitioner was ready to pay the entire amount of compensation which was saddled on him by the Trial Court and for that purpose the petitioner got prepared two demand drafts. But since there was no representation on behalf of the complainant before the appellate Court, therefore the said submission of the petitioner could not be accepted and resultantly the appellate Court upheld the findings and sentence of the Trial Court. It is further contended that the petitioner has entered into the memorandum of understanding dated 15.02.2016 with the complainant/respondent No. 2 and as per the settlement, the complainant has agreed to compound the offence against the petitioner, in lieu of the payment of the settlement amount.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the offence for which the petitioner has been convicted is a compoundable offence and since the matter been has amicably been settled between the parties and the complainant has also agreed to compound the offence against the petitioner, therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for compounding of the offence.

7. Mr. Izhar Ahmed, Additional Public Prosecutor appears on behalf of the State and submits that