Compromise, when complete payment is made, allows for quashing of proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

1. The petitioner, who is facing a criminal prosecution for the commission of offence punishable under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , 1881, has come up before this Court under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , for quashing the proceedings because the parties have compromised the matter.

2. Learned counsel for the parties, state that the matter stands compromised between the parties and thus the complaint and all consequent proceedings be quashed.

3. REASONING:
A perusal of the petition reveals that the accused has met all the liability as detailed in the petition. The complainant had put in appearance and on 23.4.2021, made a statement on oath that he had received the full and final payment and prays for closure of the complaint / case. The said statement forms part of the record.

4. The jurisprudence behind the N.I. Act is that the business transactions are honored. The legislative intention is not to send the people to suffer incarceration because their cheque was bounced. These proceedings are to execute the recovery of cheque amount by showing teeth of penalty loss.

5. In Kaushalya Devi Massand v Roop - kishore Khore, (2011) 4 SCC 593 : (AIR 2011 SC 2566), the Hon' ble Supreme Court held as follows:
(11). Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties, we are of the view that the gravity of a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be equated with an offence under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code or other criminal offences. An offence under S.138 of the , 1881, is almost in the nature of a civil wrong which has been given criminal overtones.
(12). The learned Magistrate, in his wisdom was of the view that imposition of a fine payable as compensation to the Appellant was sufficient to meet the ends of justice in the instant case. Except having regard to the submission made that the Appellant / complainant, is a widowed lady of advanced age, there is no other special circumstance which calls for interference with the order of the learned Magistrate, as confirmed by the High Court, with an increased fine.
(13). After an interval of 14 years, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the High Court impugned in the appeal, except to the extent of increasing the amount of compensation payable by a further sum of Rs. 2 lakhs. The said amount of Rs. 2 lakhs in addition to the sum of Rs. 6 lakhs already directed to be paid by the Respondent to the Appellant, shall be deposited in the Trial Court within two weeks from date and upon such deposit being made, the Appellant will be at liberty to withdraw the same by way of compensation, together with the amounts already deposited, if not already withdrawn. In default of such deposit, the Appellant shall undergo one month' s simple imprisonment.

6. The Hon' ble Supreme Court in Meters and Instruments Private Limited and another v Kanchan Mehta , (2018) 1 SCC 560 : (AIR 2017 SC 4594) holds,
(18). From the above discussion following aspects emerge:
(18.1). Offence under S.138 of the Act is primarily a civil wrong. Burden of proof is on accused in view presumption under S.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 S.258Cr.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 punitiv