JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J. -

The petitioner, who stands convicted by the trial court as well as the Sessions court, 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 of judgment of conviction affirmed by appellate Court.

2. The petitioner faced criminal prosecution by the private respondent because of the dishonor of the cheque in question. Thus, the opposition of the State's counsel to this compromise is formal.

3. During the pendency of the petition in the court, the parties had asked for mediation. On their request, a co-ordinate bench of this court had referred the matter to the mediation. As per the mediator's report the parties had entered a settlement vide a memorandum dated 5-7-2019 (in connected petition CRR-3161-2018) and have settled their disputes. After that this court had asked the parties to get their statements recorded before the trial court. On 24-1-2023, the complainant appeared before the JMIC Jind and stated that he has received the settled amount and does not want to continue with the compliant any further. Vide the trial court's report dated 9-2-2023, the parties stated before it that they have settled their disputes and there is no amount due to the complainant from the side of the accused/convict/petitioner.

4. The jurisprudence behind the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is that the business transactions are to be honoured. The legislative intention is not to make people suffer incarceration only because their cheques bounced. These proceedings are to recover the cheque amount by showing teeth of a penal clause. Now, as per the above-mentioned report, the parties have settled their disputes and have compromised the matter.

5. It would be relevant to refer to the judicial precedents wherein based on the compromise, the convictions were set aside:

a). In Ram Prasad and Another v. State of Uttar Pardesh, Cr.A Nos. 308-309 of 1980, decided on April 21, 1980, Hon'ble Supreme Court converted the conviction from 307 IPC to 324 IPC and after that based on compromise, accepted the compounding of offence under section 324 IPC and acquitted the appellants.

b). In Ramji Lal v. State of Haryana, (1983) 1 SCC 368, Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a matter arising against the conviction under section 325 IPC, held,

[5]. All the offences for which the appellants are convicted are compoundable and the compromise can be entered into with the permission of the court. Looking to the chastened attitude of the accused and the commendable attitude of the injured complainant, in order to restore harmony in the society, we accept the compromise. We grant permission to enter into the compromise and accept the same. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on both the appellants. If they are on bail, their bail-bonds will be cancelled. If they are in jail, they will be released from the jail forthwith.

c). In Mohd. Rafi v. State of U.P., 1998(2) RCR (Criminal) 455, Supreme Court, the convict had gone to Hon'ble Supreme Court against his conviction by the trial Court under Sections 323 and 325 of IPC, which was upheld by Sessions and High Court. After that, the convict and the victim entered into an out-of-court compromise. Hon'