JUDGMENT :

Anoop Chitkara, J. 

1. The petitioner, who stands convicted and sentenced to a period of six months and was directed to pay compensation to the tune of the cheque amount i.e. Rs.1,80,000/-with interest by the trial court, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (NIA), after dismissal of his appeal by the Sessions court, has come up before this Court under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (CrPC) for setting aside the judgment of conviction, based on compromise.

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 petition is formal.

3. This court had asked the parties to appear before the concerned court and had asked the said court to give its report as per the format. The report reads as follows:

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. The present matter relates to an economic offence and the penal teeth are with an end object of recovery of legally enforceable debt or admitted liability.

6. In Shakuntala Sawhney v Kaushalya Sawhney, (1979) 3 SCR 639, at P 642, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the finest hour of Justice arises propitiously when parties, who fell apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship or reunion.

7. It would be relevant to refer to the judicial precedents in Damodar S. Prabhu v Sayed Babalal, (2010) 5 SCC 663, where based on the compromise, the convictions were set aside:

8. This Court has inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to interfere in this kind of matter and has revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 CrPC. In the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case and judicial precedent, I am of the considered opinion that the continuation of these proceedings will not serve any fruitful purpose whatsoever. Given above, because of the compromise, this is a fit case where the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 401 of the CrPC supported by Section 147 of the NIA is invoked to disrupt the prosecution and quash the proceedings mentioned above. Given above, judgment of conviction and order of sentence and all the proceedings arising out of the complaint, captioned above, are set aside.

9. Given the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Damodar S. Prabhu v Sayed Babalal, (supra), the law is well settled that when the entire money is paid, then the