JUDGMENT :

Harpreet Singh Brar, J.

The present revision petition has been filed for setting aside the impugned order dated 26.03.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana, whereby, an application moved by the petitioner under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short NI Act') has been, declined.

2. Summarily, the facts of the case are that complaint under Section 138 of NI Act was filed against the petitioners on the ground of dishonouring of cheques bearing No.535102 dated 01.01.2013 amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- and No.529166 dated 01.01.2013 amounting to Rs.4,61,314/-, issued in favour of the complainant/respondent by petitioner No.2 in discharge of his liability. Thereafter, the complainant/respondent served the accused/petitioners with legal notice dated 17.01.2013 but despite the same, petitioner No.2 failed to make the payment to the complainant and hence, the complaint has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that petitioner No.2 has been falsely implicated in the complaint filed by the respondent under Section 138 of NI Act. He further submits that the legislative mandate under Section 147 of NI Act, makes an offence under Section 138 of NI Act as compoundable. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to pay the amount of cheque in question and further ready to pay interest on the same. The petitioner has already approached the learned Court below by filing an appropriate application for compounding of the offence under Section 138 of NI Act. Further, the learned Court below has passed the impugned order without adverting to the statutory provisions contained under Section 147 of NI Act. As such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Farther, this Court can invoke the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and compound the offence under Section 138 of NI Act.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and from perusal of the record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner has come forward seeking compounding of the offence under Section 138 of NI Act after more than 12 years from the filing of the complaint, as such, the complainant/respondent has refused to give his consent.

The legal issue which arises for the consideration of this Court whether without the consent of the complainant in a case under Section 138 of NI Act, the proceedings can be compounded?

5. While Section 138 of NI Act allows compounding of the offence, however, it is no longer res integra that compounding requires the complainant's consent and the Court cannot compel the complainant to agree to it.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has recently reiterated the settled law in this regard, further emphasizing the importance and necessity of complainant's consent for compounding the offence under Section 139 of NI Act.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.S. Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Nayati Medical Pvt. Ltd. and others'2025 (1) RCR (Criminal) 714 as dealt with the issue with regard to the consent of the complainant for compounding in extenso, has observed as under:-

14. As relates the requirement of consen'' for compounding offence under Section 138, N.I. Act, by invoking the power under Section 147, N.I. Act, it is to be noted that the question is no longer res integra. This Court in the decision in JIK Industries Ltd. & Ors v. Amarlal V.Jumani & Anr. [(2012) 3 SCC 255] declined to accept the contention that in view of the non-obstante clause in Section 147, NI Act, which is a special statute, the requirement of consent of the person compounding the offence under Section 138, N.I. Act, is not required. After extracting provision under Section 147, N.I. Act, this Court in JIK Industries Ltd. case (supra) observed and held in paragraph 58 and 59 thereof thus: -

15. In the contextual situation it is relevant to refer to a recent decision of this Court in Raj Reddy Kallem v. The State of Haryana & Anr. [2024 INSC 347]. The said decision would reveal that this Court took note of earlier d