RAJPAL SINGH @ RAJU Vs. JOGINDER SINGH AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present criminal revision petition is directed against the impugned judgment dated 11.09.2014, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judgw (FTC), Bathinda, whereby impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of even date i.e. 14.05.2013, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bathinda, were upheld.

(2.) Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that after passing of the impugned judgment dated 11.09.2014 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, parties arrived at an amicable settlement by way of compromise dated 06.12.2014 (Annexure P-1). As a consequence of the compromise, petitioner paid and respondent-complainant accepted the agreed amount by way of receipt (Annexure P-2). Relying upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sube Singh and another Vs. State of Haryana and another, 2013 4 RCR(Cri) 102 , learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition deserves to be allowed, by setting aside the impugned judgments and order of sentence.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that in view of the peculiar fact situation of the present case, instant revision petition deserves to be allowed, for the following more than one reasons. Offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('N.I. Act' for short) for which the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced, is compoundable. In view of the nature of offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act, it is compoundable at every stage of litigation, even after conviction by the learned trial Court. In the present case, parties have arrived at an amicable settlement by way of compromise dated 06.12.2014 (Annexure P-1) and pursuant thereto, respondent-complainant has accepted the agreed amount vide receipt (Annexure P-2). Once the parties have decided to bury the hatchet, no useful purpose will be served by keeping the criminal litigation pending and the petitioner deserves acquittal of the charges framed against him.