JUDGMENT Arunabha Basu, J. The revisional application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed to quash the proceeding in connection with the Complaint Case No. 5242/2002 under section 138 read with section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, now pending before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, XIIIth Court, Calcutta. 2. Petitioner herein filed the applications before the learned Court below respectively dated 13.2.2004 and 24.12.2003 praying for discharge from this case only on the ground that they paid the entire amount involved in the cheques dishonoured from the bank along with interest as per the order passed by the High Court, Calcutta and as such the petitioners should be absolved from the criminal liability. Learned Court below on consideration of the said prayer by passing a reasoned order, was of the view that the criminal liability of the petitioner herein arises when the cheque issued by them was dishonoured from the bank and as such the subsequent payment may not have any bearing with the criminal case instituted against them. 3. On perusal of the petition of complaint lodged before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, it appears that the petitioners issued two cheques respectively bearing No. 154330 dated 30.10.2002 for an amount of Rs. 32,259.60 and cheque bearing No. 154333 dated 30.10.2002 for an amount of Rs. 64,519.20. It is narrated in the petition of complaint that the said cheques issued to discharge liability was presented before the bank but the cheques were returned by the banker with endorsement "exceeds arrangements". 4. Petitioners being Company and the officers of the Company will be prima facie liable in terms of provision under section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 5. It appears before the learned Court below that the plea was also taken about payment of the amount consequent to the order passed by the Single Judge of this Court in connection with C.P. No. 12/2003 whereby and whereunder learned Single Judge directed that in view of admission of claim, a sum of Rs. 1,88,541/- together with simple interest at the rate of 9% in terms of section 434 of the Companies Act will be payable. It was further directed that such payment will be made in 12 equal instalments. It was also directed that if the payment is effected in terms of the order, then winding up petition shall remain permanently stayed. 6. 1,88,541/- together with simple interest at the rate of 9% in terms of section 434 of the Companies Act will be payable. It was further directed that such payment will be made in 12 equal instalments. It was also directed that if the payment is effected in terms of the order, then winding up petition shall remain permanently stayed. 6. It appears that the learned Court below took into consideration about the submission about payment effected consequent to the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court but the learned Court below is of the view that so far as the criminal offence is concerned, the petitioner cannot be exonerated only on the ground of payment subsequently effected after the commission of offence. 7. It may be pointed out in this context that subsequent payment effected after commission of offence cannot and does not absolve the petitioners from the offence and can at best operate as a mitigating circumstances in favour of the petitioners which can only be decided by the learned Court below at the time of conclusion of the trial. But their appears to be no sanction of law in support of the contention that subsequent payment effected by the petitioners in discharging their obligation shall absolve the petitioners from the criminal liability. The offence under the provision of Negotiable Instruments Act clearly stipulates that it is not an offence when the cheque presented before the bank is dishonoured. The offence will be complete only if no payment is made to discharge the liability after service of notice demanding payment and in this case it is averred in the petition of complaint that in spite of service of notice, no payment was effected within the period as prescribed under law. 8. This being the position, the instant complaint may not be quashed only on the ground that payment was subsequently effected by the petitioners. So far as the question of compounding the offence, it appears from the order passed by the Court below that this aspect was also taken into consideration. Compounding of offence is permissible only when the parties are agreed to it and if in the instant case, the parties agreed to compound the offence, it is expected that the learned Magistrate will take into account such compounding of the offence and shall deal with the matter in accordance with law. 9. Compounding of offence is permissible only when the parties are agreed to it and if in the instant case, the parties agreed to compound the offence, it is expected that the learned Magistrate will take into account such compounding of the offence and shall deal with the matter in accordance with law. 9. With this observation, the revisional application is dismissed. 10. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. Interim Order granted earlier stands vacated. 12. Criminal Section is directed to forward a copy of the order to learned Court below urgently. 13. Criminal Section is directed to supply urgent certified copy of the order to the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, as and when applied for. Appeal dismissed.