JUDGMENT :- Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and is heard by consent. 2. The applicant is praying for quashing the Summary Criminal Case No.10862 of 2009. 3. Said case is filed by the respondent due to dishonour of Cheque No.834777 dated 25-06-2009 for Rs.200000/- as though notice was served cheque amount was not paid. 4. The cheque amount was towards money payable under compromise in Special Civil Suit No.596 of 2004, as disclosed in compromise and consent decree. 5. The compromise terms state the reasons of payment as follows:- "1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for partition and separate possession of 50 tolas gold, lands in Mouza Nari, House property that is plot no.2 in Tilak Nagar as alleged in the plaint. The parties i.e. Plaintiff and defendant no.1 being real brother and sister have decided to settle their alleged dispute. The defendant no. 1 has offered Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lacks only) to the Plaintiff for full and final settlement out of love and affection. However, the defendant no. 1 is presently not in position to pay the aforesaid amount and would require months time. The party no. 1 has therefore issued cheques bearing no.834777, 834778 and 434779 dated 15.12.2008, 15-3-2009 and 15-6-2009 of Rs. 1,50,000/-, Rs.1,50,000/and Rs.2,00,000/- respectively drawn on Bank of I.D.B.I Bank from his saving account bearing no. 041104000242776 in the name of and in favour of the Plaintiff and the receipt of the same is hereby acknowledged by the Plaintiff. Ch. No. Date Amount 834777 15.12.2008 1,50,000 834778 15.03.2009 1,50,000 834779 15.06.2009 2,00,000 [Quoted from page 16 & 17 of Crim. Appln. Paper Book] 6. The amount was payable towards said compromise, decree and cheque was issued by the Judgment Debtor (accused) in the Special Suit filed by the plaintiff/ Complainant. All three cheques were dishonoured. 7. Though notice of dishonour of cheques was served and payment was not made, the respondent had filed 3 cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 8. The complainant's evidence and cross examination was recorded in two out of those three cases. 9. During pendency of these criminal cases, the complainant also filed application for execution of consent decree, and in said Darkhast proceedings the Judgment Debtor (accused) has deposited the entire money payable under cheques issued towards payment on compromise and consequently under the dishonoured cheques as wel1. 10. 9. During pendency of these criminal cases, the complainant also filed application for execution of consent decree, and in said Darkhast proceedings the Judgment Debtor (accused) has deposited the entire money payable under cheques issued towards payment on compromise and consequently under the dishonoured cheques as wel1. 10. The complainant has withdrawn two cases. Summary Criminal Case No.10862/2009 towards dishonour of one cheque for Rs.2,00,000/- is pending. By this application, prayer is made for quashing Summary Criminal Case No. 10862 of 2009. 11. The grounds put forward by petitioner for the prayer for quashing are summarized as below:- (a) There did not exist nor a debt legally payable nor it exists now towards dishonoured cheque. (b) Cheque issued towards settlement money in compromise does not constitute a debt payable in law. (c) The amount of dishonoured cheque was paid in Darkhast proceedings. (d) The amount subject matter of compromise was offered due to love and affection, and complainant has admitted said fact of promise to pay and issue of cheques towards love and affection. 12. Respective Advocates have relied upon following judgments:- Learned Advocate for the applicant: (1) 2008(6) Mh.L.J., 526: [2008 ALL MR (Cri) 1936 (S.C.)], Lalitkumar Sharma and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another. Proposition:- Amount paid under compromise by cheque, is not a payment towards a debt legally payable. Learned Advocate for Respondent no.1. Proposition:- 2006) 6 Supreme Court Cases 456 :[2006(4) ALL MR 145 (S.C.)], D. Vinod Shivappa Vs. Nanda Belliappa. The liability to pay arises no sooner notice of dishonour is served, in spite of receipt money is not paid within 15 days. 13. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalitkumar Sharma's case supra, reported in 2008(6) Mh.L.J., 526: (2008 ALL MR (Cri) 1936 (S.C.)], is a dictum on the point that:- "Where the compromise did not materialize due to failure on the part of payee to honour his commitment, the promise to pay did not mature for payment". 14. It is thus clear that in the case before Hon'ble Supreme Court, the performance on the part of promisor as to reciprocal promise did not mature. Therefore, payment covered by a cheque given on account of compromise which has failed had not become due and payable being reciprocal performance. As such, dishonoured cheque was not due for payment towards to legally recoverable debt. Therefore, payment covered by a cheque given on account of compromise which has failed had not become due and payable being reciprocal performance. As such, dishonoured cheque was not due for payment towards to legally recoverable debt. Such is not the fact of matter in present case. The precedent cited and relied upon does not govern present case on fact or on law. 15. In present case, the plaintiff had already performed the proclamation of relinquishment by signing on the compromise in the hope of encashment of cheques. Whatever was due, was the performance on the part of the accused, to honour the cheque and to pay. The accused had failed in his obligation and a legally payable debt thus existed. 16. As regards the admission of the complaint given by her in her cross examination, that cheques were issued due to love and affection cannot, be read in isolation and by disjuncture from other words contained in the terms of compromise which are in the para no.5 herein before. Moreover, repercussions of said version are bound to be considered by the trial court while considering the merits of the case. 17. Therefore, that "no offence was committed" cannot be judged without trial. The trial is indispensable. 18. Therefore, no interference is called for. Rule is discharged. Interim relief is vacated. Application dismissed.