The offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is compoundable, allowing for acquittal upon mutual settlement between the parties.

JUDGMENT

Jasjit Singh Bedi, J. (Oral)

The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 18.07.2023 passed by the Sessions Judge, Fazilka, vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.02.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Abohar, has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the accused-petitioner approached the complainant for financing a vehicle make Hundai i20 Asta CRDI for personal necessity. After understanding all the terms and conditions, the accused executed an agreement No.1514310 dated 25.03.2011 in favour of the complainant company and a loan amount of Rs. 5,60,000/- was advanced to the accused. The accused promised to repay the loan of Rs. 8,82,800/- along with incidental interest and other charges thereof in 60 easy monthly instalments as per the aforesaid agreement. After advancement of the loan, the accused-petitioner had violated the terms and conditions of the agreement by defaulting in paying the instalments. When the officer of the company approached the accused-petitioner for payment of balance loan amount, the petitioner in discharge of his legal liability issued a cheque bearing No.367002 dated 04.06.2018 for a sum of Rs. 15,82,107 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Branch Ghallu under his account No.1924000100074400 and assured that the same would be honoured on its presentation in the bank. On presentation of the aforesaid cheque for encashment, the same was received back unpaid vide memo dated 12.06.2018 with the remarks "Funds Insufficient". The accused-petitioner was served with a legal notice dated 02.07.2018 within time but he failed to make the payment, leading to initiation of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. In the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed by the complainant-company, the petitioner-accused was summoned to face the trial. The evidence was led and ultimately, accused-petitioner was held guilty and accordingly, convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and it was also ordered that the accused will pay compensation of Rs. 15,82,107/- under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. to be paid to the complainant and in failure of payment of the compensation, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 03 months.

4. That aggrieved against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Fazilka, which came to be dismissed on 18.07.2023.

5. Still aggrieved, the present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner. During the pendency of the present criminal revision, an application (CRM-53603-2023) under Section 320(6) read with Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for permitting the compounding of the offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as the parties have amicably settled the dispute.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in terms of a settlement arrived at between the parties, the accused-petitioner has paid a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- to the respondent-complainant on 14.12.2023 vide receipts (Annexure A-1) as full and final settlement against the petitioner and nothing remains due and recoverable by the complainant-respondent as is evident from Statement of Accounts (Annexure A-2). It would be relevant to mention here that a reading of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 320 Cr.P.C. would show that where a settlement has been effected, the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be compounded on account of the fact that a mutual compromise has been effected between the parties.

7. The learned counsel for respondent submits that as the matter has been settled betwe