JUDGMENT Anoop Chitkara, J. - Cr.MP No. 886 of 2019 in Cr. R. No. 227/2017 & Cr.MP No. 885 of 2019 in Cr.R. No. 228/2017 The petitioner/convict Mohan Lal has filed these applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 for cancellation of the Non Bailable Warrants issued by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 30.5.2019. However, petitioner has also submitted that he has deposited the outstanding amount of compensation awarded against him by the learned Trial Court, which order was also upheld by the learned Sessions Judge. 2. The necessity of filing these applications has arisen because the petitioner failed to obey the assurances given to this Court on various occasions. Initially when the matter was listed for the first time on 11.8.2017 then a prayer was made that the petitioner/convict is willing to compromise the matter in terms of judgment delivered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H., (2010) 5 SCC 663 . On that basis the substantive sentence was suspended. Thereafter on 8.09.2017 the Court referred the matter to mediation and on 24.8.2018 the Court was informed that the mediation has failed, therefore Bailable Warrants were issued against the petitioner-convict. From order dated 14.9.2018, it appears that regarding the previous order learned counsel appearing for the petitioner could not get confirmation, as such, he sought an adjournment with an undertaking to send another communication through Registered AD to his client and consequently the Court issued fresh Bailable Warrants against the petitioner/convict. 3. On 12.10.2018 the petitioner-convict appeared in person and prayed for four weeks time to deposit the compensation amount of Rs. 65,000/-. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court allowed that request, putting stringent conditions and permitted him to do so within the stipulated time. On 19.11.2018, petitioner/convict again presented himself before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and learned counsel sought one week further time to comply with the previous order and the time was granted. Subsequently on 5.12.2018 two weeks further time was sought which was also granted. Vide order dated 26.12.2018 it was submitted that Rs. 7500/- have been deposited in the Registry of this Court. The order dated 26.12.2018 is reproduced herein below: "As per report of Registry, Rs. 7500/- i.e. 15% of the cheque amount stands deposited in the Registry. Subsequently on 5.12.2018 two weeks further time was sought which was also granted. Vide order dated 26.12.2018 it was submitted that Rs. 7500/- have been deposited in the Registry of this Court. The order dated 26.12.2018 is reproduced herein below: "As per report of Registry, Rs. 7500/- i.e. 15% of the cheque amount stands deposited in the Registry. Petitioner is present in person, who through his counsel seeks further time to approach the respondent with amount of compensation. By way of special indulgence, one more adjournment is granted, as requested by learned counsel for the petitioner. List on 1st March, 2019." 4. On 01.03.2019 the petitioner-convict again presented himself before the Court and made cash payments of 10,000/- to the respondent through his learned counsel and consequently the Co-ordinate Bench granted him time till 10.04.2019 to deposit the balance amount. On 12.4.2019 it was informed to the Court that order dated 11.8.2017 was not complied with. Therefore, it was ordered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court which is reproduced as under: "Despite ample opportunities having been granted by the Court, order dated 11.08.2017 till date has not been complied with. List on 16th April, 2019, on which date, the petitioner shall remain present in the Court in person. It is clarified that in case order dated 11.08.2017 is not complied with in letter and spirit by the petitioner by 16th April, 2019, then the consequences will follow. Copy dasti." 5. On 16.04.2019 the petitioner/convict gave an undertaking before this Court that he has deposited 34,000/- out of which 17,000/- is in each case and balance amount shall be deposited within three weeks. On 13.5.2019 it was brought to the notice of the Court that order dated 16.4.2019 was not complied with and the Coordinate Bench ordered the matter to be listed on 22.5.2019, affording one week more time to comply with the order. 6. On 22.05.2019 petitioner did not present himself before Court nor did he deposit the balance amount in terms of order dated 16.4.2019. However, learned counsel for the petitioner/convict submitted that order dated 13.5.2019 was duly conveyed to the petitioner. 6. On 22.05.2019 petitioner did not present himself before Court nor did he deposit the balance amount in terms of order dated 16.4.2019. However, learned counsel for the petitioner/convict submitted that order dated 13.5.2019 was duly conveyed to the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court observed in the following terms: "When this Court had directed the petitioner to remain present in person in the Court, then, non-appearance of the petitioner amounts to willful disobedience of the Court order as no cogent explanation has been given as to why he is not present in the Court today. Accordingly, let non-bailable warrant be issued against the petitioner returnable for 30.05.2019." 7. On 30.5.2019 it was brought to the notice of the Court that the Non Bailable Warrants could not be served. Consequently fresh Non Bailable Warrants were issued against the petitioner/convict returnable for 2.7.2019. The present applications have been filed seeking to recall the executable portion of the orders dated 22.5.2019 and 30.5.2019. 8. Mr. Pramod Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner/convict has submitted that the entire balance amount of 38,000/- has been deposited in the Registry of this Court vide D.D. No. 007213 dated 31st May, 2019. 9. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Meters and Instruments Private Limited and another vs. Kanchan Mehta, (2018) 1 SCC 560 has held as under: 18. From the above discussion following aspects emerge: 18.1. Offence under Section 138 of the Act is primarily a civil wrong. Burden of proof is on accused in view presumption under Section 139 but the standard of such proof is "preponderance of probabilities". The same has to be normally tried summarily as per provisions of summary trial under the Cr.P.C. but with such variation as may be appropriate to proceedings under Chapter XVII of the Act. Thus read, principle of Section 258 Cr.P.C., 1973 will apply and the Court can close the proceedings and discharge the accused on satisfaction that the cheque amount with assessed costs and interest is paid and if there is no reason to proceed with the punitive aspect. 18.2 The object of the provision being primarily compensatory, punitive element being mainly with the object of enforcing the compensatory element, compounding at the initial stage has to be encouraged but is not debarred at later stage subject to appropriate compensation as may be found acceptable to the parties or the Court. 18.3. 18.2 The object of the provision being primarily compensatory, punitive element being mainly with the object of enforcing the compensatory element, compounding at the initial stage has to be encouraged but is not debarred at later stage subject to appropriate compensation as may be found acceptable to the parties or the Court. 18.3. Though compounding requires consent of both parties, even in absence of such consent, the Court, in the interests of justice, on being satisfied that the complainant has been duly compensated, can in its discretion close the proceedings and discharge the accused. 18.4. Procedure for trial of cases under Chapter XVII of the Act has normally to be summary. The discretion of the Magistrate under second proviso to Section 143, to hold that it was undesirable to try the case summarily as sentence of more than one year may have to be passed, is to be exercised after considering the further fact that apart from the sentence of imprisonment, the Court has jurisdiction under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C., 1973 to award suitable compensation with default sentence under Section 64 I.P.C. and with further powers of recovery under Section 431 Cr.P.C., 1973 With this approach, prison sentence of more than one year may not be required in all cases. 18.5. Since evidence of the complaint can be given on affidavit, subject to the Court summoning the person giving affidavit and examining him and the bank''s slip being prima facie evidence of the dishonor of cheque, it is unnecessary for the Magistrate to record any further preliminary evidence. Such affidavit evidence can be read as evidence at all stages of trial or other proceedings. The manner of examination of the person giving affidavit can be as per Section 264 Cr.P.C., 1973 The scheme is to follow summary procedure except where exercise of power under second proviso to Section 143 becomes necessary, where sentence of one year may have to be awarded and compensation under Section 357(3) is considered inadequate, having regard to the amount of the cheque, the financial capacity and the conduct of the accused or any other circumstances. 10. In Kaushalya Devi Massand vs. Roopkishore Khore, (2011) 4 SCC 593 , the Hon''ble Supreme Court held as follows: "11. 10. In Kaushalya Devi Massand vs. Roopkishore Khore, (2011) 4 SCC 593 , the Hon''ble Supreme Court held as follows: "11. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties, we are of the view that the gravity of a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be equated with an offence under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code or other criminal offences. An offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is almost in the nature of a civil wrong which has been given criminal overtones. 12. The learned Magistrate, in his wisdom was of the view that imposition of a fine payable as compensation to the Appellant was sufficient to meet the ends of justice in the instant case. Except having regard to the submission made that the Appellant/ complainant, is a widowed lady of advanced age, there is no other special circumstance which calls for interference with the order of the learned Magistrate, as confirmed by the High Court, with an increased fine. 13. After an interval of 14 years, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the High Court impugned in the appeal, except to the extent of increasing the amount of compensation payable by a further sum of 2 lakhs. The said amount of 2 lakhs in addition to the sum of 6 lakhs already directed to be paid by the Respondent to the Appellant, shall be deposited in the Trial Court within two weeks from date and upon such deposit being made, the Appellant will be at liberty to withdraw the same by way of compensation, together with the amounts already deposited, if not already withdrawn. In default of such deposit, the Appellant shall undergo one month''s simple imprisonment." 11. In view of the law declared by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India pertaining to the jurisprudence behind the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and also in view of the fact that the entire compensation amount has been deposited, these applications are allowed and Non Bailable Warrants issued against the petitioner-convict on 30.5.2019 are hereby recalled. Applications stands disposed of accordingly. Registry is also directed to place a certified copy of this order in Cr. Revision No. 228 of 2017. Copy dasti.