1. The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, being aggrieved by order dated 24.8.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Narsingarh, District Rajgarh in Criminal Revivison No.195/2012, by which the revisional Court has dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner against order dated 29.7.2011.

2. Facts of the case reveal that a complaint was preferred under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by respondent No.2 against the present petitioner on 2.7.2007. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Narsingarh sentenced the petitioner for six months imprisonment and fine of Rs.3,30,000/- was imposed against which an appeal was preferred, i.e., No.231/2007 and a settlement took place between the parties in Lok Adalat on 25.7.2008. Both the parties agreed to withdraw the pending litigations and in terms of the settlement a condition of payment of Rs.3,51,750/- by cheque dated 31.12.2008 of State Bank of India, Shujalpur Branch was given to the respondents. The present petitioner was signatory to the aforesaid cheque. Later on the cheque was presented for encashment on 2.2.2009 and the same was returned with an endorsement “Please Contact Issuing Person”. As the cheque was dishonoured, second complaint was filed and a case was registered, i.e., Criminal Case No.547/2009 for offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On 7.8.2011 (29.7.2011) an order was passed taking cognizance of the matter against which appeal was preferred and the appeal has been dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by the apex Court in the case of Lalit Kumar Sharma and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in (2008)5 SCC 638, and his contention is that as the second cheque was given in lieu of the compromise and as the complainant was already punished in the earlier case, the question of taking cognizance at a second complaint does not arise in the light of the judgment delivered by the apex Court.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has made an attempt to distinguish the judgment delivered by the apex Court and his contention is that the respondents have not received the amount and as per the Lok Adalat settlement a cheque was given and the same was dishonoured and, therefore, as there was a liability which is a legally enforceable debt, the second complaint is maintainable.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

6. In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that in respect of earlier cheque issued by the present applicant a criminal case was preferred under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and a judgment of conviction was also delivered by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Narsingarh. Fine was also imposed. An appeal was preferred against the judgment of conviction, i.e., No.231/2007 and both the parties in Lok Adalat, on 25.7.2000, have agreed to withdraw pending litigation. A cheque was also given in the light of the settlement of Rs.3,51,750/- and the same has been dishonoured. The second complaint has been preferred on account of dishonour of the second cheque.

7. The apex Court in the case of Lalit Kumar Sharma (supra), in paragraphs 11 to 17 has held as under :

11. Section 138 of the Act reads, thus :

“138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account. -- Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed