An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be compounded even post-conviction if both parties consent, affirming the need for reformative justice.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Moudgil, J.

1. The present revision petition has been preferred against judgment dated 25.05.2022 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Patiala whereby, the appeal preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.05.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura, vide which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo a rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for commission of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1881'), is dismissed.

2. On perusal of order dated 28.03.2025, it is evident that a compromise has been effected between the parties, which has been reduced into writing vide compromise deed dated 24.01.2025 (Annexure P-1) and on that account counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not want to challenge his conviction on merits.

3. Along-with the present petition, an application bearing CRM No. 13078-2025 has been filed by the applicant/petitioner under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 147 of Act of 1881 for compounding of the offences, as compromise has already been effected between the parties, which has been reduced into writing vide compromise deed dated 28.03.2025.

4. The petitioner(s) stands convicted under Sections 138 of Act of 1881 vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.05.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura, he was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year for commission of offence under Section 138 of Act of 1881 and the appeal preferred against the afore-said judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been dismissed vide judgment dated 25.05.2022 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rajpura.

5. During the pendency of present revision petition, the petitioner and complainant have entered into an out of Court settlement and the same has been reduced into writing vide compromise deed dated 24.01.2025 (Annexure P-1). A perusal of the documents reveal that the settlement has not been secured through coercion, threats, social boycotts, bribes, or other dubious means. The complainant has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings. There is no objection from the respondent in case present revision petitions are allowed.

6. In the given facts, the occurrence does not affect public peace or tranquillity, moral turpitude or harm the social and moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning public policy. The rejection of compromise may also lead to ill will. The pendency of trial affects career and happiness. There is nothing on the record to prima facie consider the accused as an unscrupulous, incorrigible, and professional offender. The purpose of criminal jurisprudence is reformatory in nature and to work to bring peace to family, and society. The exercise of the inherent power for quashing the conviction, sentence and all previous proceedings are justified to secure the ends of justice.

7. At the very initial stage of hearing, a question was raised on behalf of the appellant as to whether an offence under Section 138 of the Act of 1881, could be compounded under Section 147 of the said Act read with Section 320 Cr.P.C (now Section 359 BNSS).

8. Since a specific power had been given to the parties to a proceeding under the Negotiable Instruments Act under Section 147 to compound the offence, there could be no reason as to why the same cannot be permitted even after conviction, which had been affirmed upto the High Court.

9. Moreover, in order to facilitate settlement of disputes, the legislature thought it fit to insert Section 147 by Amending Act 55 of 2002. Such amendment came into effect from 6th February, 2003, and provided that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now BNSS, 2023) every offence punishable under the Act would be compoundable. In view of the non-obstante clause, the provisions of were given an overriding ef