JUDGMENT :

(Jyotsna Sharma, J.)

1. Heard Sri Abhitab Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri O.P. Mishra, learned AGA for the State and Smt. Archana Tyagi, learned counsel for respondents.

2. By means of this criminal revision, the revisionist has challenged an order dated 23.03.2023 passed by Session Judge, Meerut in criminal revision no. 205 of 2023 (Vishwakarma Builders and Others vs. State of U.P. and Another) whereby the learned revisional court set aside the order dated 24.02.2023 passed by Additional Special Court no. 2, Meerut in criminal complaint case no. 1577 of 2009 (Rani Gaur vs. Vishwakarma Builders and Others) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station Partapur, District Meerut.

3. Relevant facts are as below:-

The instant revisionist filed a complaint on 11.08.2009 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, which is pending before the trial court; during the course of proceedings the accused filed a demand draft of Rs. 11 lakhs and made a prayer before the trial court to direct the revisionist/complainant to compound the case; the revisionist objected to compounding saying that she is not ready to settle the matter for Rs. 11 lakhs after lapse of 13 years; the learned Magistrate rejected the application of the accused on the ground that the complainant cannot be compelled to compound the matter; the accused challenged the aforesaid order by filing a revision; the revision came to be decided by the learned revisional court whereby the impugned order was set aside and the trial court was directed to pass an appropriate order as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in M/s Meters and Instruments Private Limited and Another vs. Kanchan Mehta: AIR 2017 Supreme Court 4594.

4. It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that the finding recorded by the revisional court is illegal and arbitrary and against the provisions of law; the accused, after lapse of about 14 years wants to get the matter compounded by giving the amount of the cheque with additional about 10% only; she has been suffering since 2009 and has been in dire need of money for domestic purposes; the accused is not entitled to any benefit in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Damodar S Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal: (2010) 5 SCC 663 and in the light of the judgment of M/s Meters and Instruments Private Limited and Another vs. Kanchan Mehta (supra). Citing certain circumstances relating to the present controversy, story, the background facts and civil suit between the two, it is argued on behalf of the revisionist that apprehending his imminent failure in both the cases, he sought to save himself by giving Rs. 11 lakhs for the cheque amount of Rs. 10 lakhs, after 13 years of suffering.

5. I went through the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s Meters and Instruments Private Limited and Another vs. Kanchan Mehta (supra). The Supreme Court highlighted the fact that the matters under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are essentially civil wrongs and the case has to be normally tried in a summary manner as prescribed in Cr.P.C. The Apex Court observed in Para-18 of the judgment as below:-

"i) Offence under Section 138 of the Act is primarily a civil wrong. Burden of proof is on accused in view presumption under Section 139 but the standard of such proof is "preponderance of probabilities". The same has to be normally tried summarily as per provisions of summary trial under the Cr.P.C. but with such variation as may be appropriate to proceedings under Chapter XVII of the Act. Thus read, principle of Section 258 Cr.P.C. will apply and the Court can close the proceedings and discharge the accused on satisfaction that the cheque amount with assessed costs and interest is paid and if there is no reason to proceed with the punitive aspect.

ii) The object of the provision being primarily compensatory, punitive element being mainly with the object of enforcing the compensatory element, compounding at