Heard Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Ms. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, the complainant and Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.2-State.

2. By this petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner has urged for exercising the inherent jurisdiction of the court for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 08.09.2016 passed by this court in Crl. Rev. Pet. No.67 of 2014 in view of the memorandum of settlement arrived at between the petitioner and the respondent No.1.

3. The solitary and the most important question that has become imperative for decision in this case is whether in view of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 the bar as provided under Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. can be waived in exercise of power provided under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 provides as under:-

“147. Offences to be compoundable.–Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable.”

4. The admitted position is that the petitioner had been initially convicted by the trial court for committing of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by the judgment and order dated 12.08.2013 as the cheque dated 23.09.2010 for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) only was dishonoured by the Tripura State Co-operative Bank Ltd. The said order of conviction passed by the trial court was challenged by filing an appeal being Crl. Appl. No.17 of 2013 in the court of the Addl. Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kamalpur now Unakoti Judicial District. By the judgment and order dated 13.06.2014 the said appeal was dismissed observing as under:

“10. I have scrutinized the whole evidence on record land all other connected exhibits. Considering all it seems to me that Ld. Trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced on the basis of doubtful evidence. I also bear in mind the case law report in (2009)6 SCC 72 Raj Kumar Khurana vs. State of (NCT of Delhi) and another, S.138-Cheque dishonoured as cheque reported as lost-Whether constitutes an offence under S.138-Held, S.138 creates a legal fiction of deemed commission of offence when a cheque is dishonoured either due to insufficiency of funds or the amount mentioned in the cheque exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from a particular account by an agreement with the bank. The fiction does not extend to lost cheque. Hence dishonour of cheque on this ground does not constitute an offence under S.138.”

5. Thereafter, by carrying out a criminal revision petition being Crl. Rev. P. No.67 of 2014 the said judgment and order dated 13.06.2014 was challenged. By the judgment and order dated 08.09.2016 this court dismissed the said petition on elaborate discussion of the evidence vis-a-vis the grounds of objection. It has been observed in the said judgment dated 08.09.2016 as under:-

“In the circumstances as above, the story as projected by the accused person does not appear at all probable or believable but the prosecution’s version has been corroborated by the circumstances and the testimonies of PWs-2 & 3 that PW-1 advanced a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- to the accused with an assurance that would be repaid on 22.09.2010. Thus, according to this Court, when a cheque was issued in discharge of the said liability, it has to be held that complainant fully discharged her burden and therefore, in the circumstances, when the accused person is totally failed to rebut, the presumption has to be drawn under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. This Court is not left with any other alternative but to hold that the complaint has proved her case to the hilt land accordingly, the accusation for committing the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act has adequately been proved. This Court is constr