The judgment established the principle that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC supported by Section 147 of the NIA can be invoked to quash proceedings based on a compromise, and emphasized the legislative intention behind the Negotiable Instruments Act not to impose incarceration for bounced cheques.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J. -

1. The petitioner, who stands convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (NIA) has come up before this Court under Section 401, Code of Criminal Procedure, (CrPC) for setting aside the judgment of conviction dated 31.07.2019 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gidderbaha, whereby the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default, to undergo further imprisonment of simple imprisonment of two months as well as judgment in appeal dated 09.12.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, whereby the judgment of the trial Court has been upheld.

2. The petitioner faced criminal prosecution by the private respondent, because of the dishonour of the cheque in question.

3. Along with the revision petition, the petitioner has filed an application i.e. CRM-44554-2021 under Section 482 of the CrPC for compounding of offence on the basis of compromise dated 10.12.2021 (Anneuxre A-1) entered between the parties.

4. At this stage, Mr. Lalit Goyal, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant and filed his power of attorney in Court, which is taken on record. He states at bar, on instructions, that the complainant has no objection if the compromise is taken on record and judgments of both the Courts below are set aside, based on the compromise entered into between the parties.

5. Given above, since the matter primarily appears to be civil in nature with criminal ting and the fact that the petitioner has already suffered sufficient incarceration, as such, nothing shall be achieved by adjourning the matter.

6. The jurisprudence behind the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is that the business transactions are to be honored. The legislative intention is not to make people suffer incarceration only because their cheque bounced. These proceedings are to execute the recovery of cheque amount by showing teeth of penalty loss.

7. Given the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal, (2010) 5 SCC 663, the law is well settled that when the entire money is paid, then the complainant cannot have any objection to such compromise, and 15% of the cheque amount is to be paid by the accused to the concerned State Legal Services Authority.

8. Given above, because of the compromise, this is a fit case where the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC supported by Section 147 of the NIA is invoked to disrupt the prosecution and quash the proceedings mentioned above. The complaint, notice of accusation, and the proceedings captioned above are quashed and set aside. The bail bonds are accordingly discharged. All pending application(s), if any, stand closed.

10. The amount of cheque in question was Rs.2,40,000/-, 15% of which comes out to be Rs.36,000/-. The petitioner shall deposit the amount of Rs. 36,000/-, on or before 31-03-2022, with the Punjab State Legal Services Authority, Chandigarh, failing which this entire order, including compounding, shall automatically stand recalled under Section 362 and Section 482 CrPC, and this petition shall be posted for hearing on merits. However, in extraordinary circumstances, the petitioner may approach this Court for an extension of time to deposit the compounding fee. Petitioner to file the proof of deposit before the trial Court with in the aforesaid time.

11. The petition is allowed in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, subject to the deposit, me