Narendra Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) An application(I.A. No. 2966/2013) has been filed before this Court by the petitioner stating therein that a compromise has been entered into between the accused-petitioner and Respondent No. 2/Complainant, copy of which has been annexed with the application. The petitioner-accused and Respondent No. 2-Complainant are also present in person before this Court and they have been identified by their respective counsel. According to the compromise, the complainant had agreed for lump sum amount of INR 1,27,500/- and the accused-petitioner has paid INR 80,000/-(Rupees Eighty Thousands) in cash before the Executing Court to Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 2-complainant shall further be entitled to receive INR 47,500/- lying deposited with Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 11, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Therefore, she does not wish to pursue any criminal proceedings against the accused-petitioner.
(2.) The Hon'ble Apex Court recently in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., reported in 2010(2) RLW 1599(SC) has observed that considering the large number of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Court should encourage on compounding of offence. The spirit of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which is not so much as to punish the accused, but is moreso to ensure that the amount owed by the accused is realised by the complainant.
(3.) In the present case, since the parties have arrived at a compromise, the application(I.A. No. 2966/2013) is allowed and the copy of compromise executed by the parties before the executing court and annexed with the application is taken on record.;