JUDGMENT 1. - This is a criminal leave to appeal under Section 378(iii) Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 24.02.2010 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Communal Riots), Pali in criminal original case No.510/2003 vide which, he acquitted the accused-respondent for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The facts in short are that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Communal Riots) Pali in connection with cheque amounting to Rs. 4,33,066/-. The trial court acquitted the accused-respondent for offence punishable under Section 138 Neotiable Instruments Act, vide judgment and order dated 24.02.2010 on the ground that the amount towards dishonoured cheque stands recovered. Hence, the present leave to appeal has been filed by the appellant-Corporation against the respondents. 3. While praying for setting aside the order of the trial Court, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the recovery of the amount does not absolve the accused respondent of the offence committed by him. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent however, has submitted that the order was just and proper. No fault can be found with the order of the trial Court acquitting the respondent in view of the well settled proposition of law. 5. Heard. 6. It is not disputed that the factory of the respondent was auctioned by the appellant-Corporation while exercising the provisions under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act and the amount towards the dishonoured cheque stands recovered. It is also admitted that no dues are pending against the respondent. It is further admitted that the surplus amount which was collected by the appellant-Corporation on account of the auction of the factory is still lying with them. It is also admitted that the appellant-Corporation had communicated to the Head Office to enable them to withdraw the prosecution against the respondent. Thus, no useful purpose would be served in case the leave to appeal is admitted. 7. The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Misc. No.M-23421 of 2008 decided on 11.11.2010 titled as Balbir Singh v. M/s. Aggarwal Mfg. Co. Thus, no useful purpose would be served in case the leave to appeal is admitted. 7. The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Misc. No.M-23421 of 2008 decided on 11.11.2010 titled as Balbir Singh v. M/s. Aggarwal Mfg. Co. , held as under:- " The provisions of Section 147 of the Act, which makes all the offences under the Act compoundable and the law laid down to the effect that compounding of the offences under the Act would be permissible even after conviction would indicate the manner in which the Courts should deal with an offence allegedly committed under the Act. In a situation, where the accused is ready and willing to pay the amount of the cheque in question, the insistence of the complainant for an adjudication on merits by refusing to accept the amount, itself, would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. 8. The facts in the present case are even better. Here, the amount stands recovered. The appellant-Corporation had no objection if prosecution was dropped. Thus, the respondent was rightly acquitted. 9. In view of the facts narrated above, this Court is of the opinion that leave to appeal against the order of acquittal is nothing but misuse of the process of law. 10. Accordingly, the present leave to appeal is dismissed.Leave to appeal dismissed. *******