The compensatory nature of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the court's power to accept a settlement between the parties and quash the proceedings under Section 147 of the Act, as well as the exercise of powers under Sections 397, 401, and 482 of the Code.

JUDGMENT

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - Looking to the nature of order, I propose to pass, it is not at all necessary to delve into the facts in detail. Suffice it to state that the complainant/respondent instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ''Act'') against the petitioner on the allegations that respondent bank has sanctioned a transport loan to the extent of Rs.10,30,000/- with interest on monthly rest and accused duly executed the loan documents and agreed to repay the loan installment with interest. However, the accused failed to operate the loan amount as per the documents and it became irregular in the installments and during process of regularization of the loan account, the accused had issued cheque dated 01.12.2011 amounting to Rs.2,20,000/- drawn on Himachal Gramin Bank Leda branch out of his savings account No. 87530100051925 towards part payment of the loan account with the complainant bank. The complainant presented the aforesaid cheque for encashment but the said cheque was bounced on the ground of ''Fund Insufficient''. The complaint was decided in favour of the respondent by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, District Shimla, H.P. and the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the complainant/respondent.

2. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Magistrate on 04/21.11.2015, though the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., however, the same came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 22.06.2018, constraining the petitioner to file the instant revision petition.

3. Today, when the case was taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the entire compensation amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and the same is handed over to the learned counsel for the respondent in the Open Court. Since, the entire compensation amount stands paid, therefore, the matter can be given quietus in terms of the judgments rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court.

4. However, the moot question is whether a compromise, at this stage, can be permitted to be effected between the parties where the petitioner has been charged under Section 138 of the Act. This court is not powerless in such situation and adequate powers have been conferred upon it not only under sections 397 read with Section 401 or Section 482 Cr.P.C. (hereinafter referred to as the Code) but also under Section 147 of the Act for accepting the settlement entered into between the parties and to quash the proceedings arising out of the proceedings, which have consequently culminated into a settlement. This power has been conferred to subserve the ends of justice or/and to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. Though, such power is required to be exercised with circumspection and in cases which do not involve heinous and serious offence of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc.

5. This question otherwise need not detain this Court any longer in view of the three Judges Bench decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai and others versus State of Gujarat and another, Criminal Appeal No. 1723 of 2017, decided on 4th October, 2017, wherein after taking into consideration the entire law on the subject, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has laid down the following broad principles for exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code which read thus:-

"(i) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;

(ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the gr