- (1.) On a complaint brought by Amarjit Singh, respondent No.1, against Narinder Singh, the petitioner for an offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the Act') the accused-petitioner was held guilty and convicted vide judgment dated 8.3.2011 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur. The appeal filed by Narinder Singh also failed to bring favourable result to him as the same was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur vide judgment dated 10.7.2012.
(2.) Thereafter, the matter is claimed to have been compromised between the two. Gurdeep Singh, attorney of the complainant is claimed to have compromised the offence with the accused. The compromise, Annexure A/1, is placed on the file, which clearly reveals that the matter stands compounded between the parties. However, two questions remain to be answered before the same could be acted upon. The first was as to whether the offence could be compounded at this stage and the second was as to whether the attorney of the complainant could enter into a compromise. With regard to the first point, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of Honble Supreme Court of India in K. Subramanian Vs. R. Rajathi Rep. By P.O.A. P. Kaliappan, 2010 1 RCR(Cri) 184. In the reported case, the conviction of the accused in the case of dishonour of cheques of the value of Rs.4,52,289/- has been upheld upto Honble Supreme Court and parties thereafter entered into a compromise. The parties were permitted to compound the offence and the conviction was set-aside.
(3.) In yet another decision of Honble Supreme Court of India in K.M.Ibrahim Vs. K.P.Mohammed & Anr., 2010 1 RCR(Cri) 595, compounding was held permissible at the appellate stage. It has also been held that once compounding of offence under the provisions of section 147 of the Act is permitted, the conviction for an offence under section 138 of the Act should also be set-aside.;