JUDGMENT : ROBIN PHUKAN, J. 1. Heard Mr. Y.S. Mannan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. P.P. Assam appearing for the State/respondent No. 2. 2. By this common judgment and order, it is proposed to dispose of two criminal petitions being Crl. Petition No. 36/2016 and Crl. Petition No. 656/2015, as a common question law is involved in both the petition and the parties involved in both the petitions are also the same and the learned Advocates of both sides also agreed to the same. 3. In Crl. Petition No. 36/2016, the petitioner, Sri Kamal Deka under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for setting aside the judgment and order dated 17.01.2013, passed by the learned SDJM (S)-II, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in C.R. Case No. 3675C/2010 and the order dated 05.08.2015, passed by the said Court in the same case and judgment and order dated 12.09.2013, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC) No. 3, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in Criminal Appeal No. 100/2013, arising out of C.R. Case No. 3675C/2010. 4. It is to be noted here that vide the impugned judgment and order dated 17.01.2013, the learned SDJM (S)-II, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati has convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of four months and also to pay a sum of Rs. 1,70,000/- being the compensation and vide the impugned judgment and order dated 12.09.2013, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC) No. 3, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati has upheld the judgment and order dated 17.01.2013, passed in C.R. Case No. 3675C/2010, dismissing the Criminal Appeal No. 100/2013, preferred by the petitioner and vide impugned order dated 05.08.2015, the learned Court below has declared the petitioner as proclaimed offender. 5. In Crl. Petition No. 656/2015, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.07.2015, in C.R. Case No. 598C/2010, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in the judgment and order dated 12.02.2013, in C.R. Case No. 598C/2010 and the impugned judgment and order dated 04.09.2014, the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, in Criminal Appeal No. 52/2013, arising out of C.R. Case No. 598C/2010. 6. 6. It is to be noted here that vide the impugned judgment and order dated 12.02.2013, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati has convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a sum of Rs. 59,840/- as compensation and vide impugned judgment and order dated 04.09.2014, the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, in Criminal Appeal No. 52/2013, upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner, so handed down by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kamrup (M) Guwahati and vide the impugned order dated 22.07.2015, the learned Court below has issued non-bailable warrant of arrest, against the petitioner. 7. The factual background leading to filing of the Crl. Petition No. 36/2016 is briefly stated as under: The respondent No. 1, Sri Joy Prakash Chouhan has lent a sum of Rs. 2 lac to the petitioner, on being approached by him, and to discharge his liability, the petitioner has given the respondent No. 1, two cheques, and one of the aforesaid two checque, was for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- and the other cheque being No. 211646, dated 30.03.2010, for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. And as per instruction of the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 has deposited the said cheque of Rs. 1,50,000/- in the month of April, 2010, for encashment with his banker, but the same returned unpaid, vide memo dated 30.04.2010, to the effect that the accused did not have sufficient fund in his account to honour the cheque. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 has requested the petitioner to make payment and then, the petitioner asked him to deposit the cheque again and accordingly, the respondent No. 1 has deposited the cheque with his banker, but, again the same returned dishonoured vide memo, dated 28.07.2010, as the petitioner did not have sufficient fund in his account. Thereafter, on 26.08.2010, the respondent No. 1 has sent one legal notice to the petitioner, demanding payment of the cheque amount, but, the petitioner failed to make payment of the said amount in spite of receipt of notice. And then the respondent No. 1 lodged a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, against the petitioner before the Court of learned SDJM (S)-II, Guwahati. And then the respondent No. 1 lodged a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, against the petitioner before the Court of learned SDJM (S)-II, Guwahati. Thereafter, hearing both sides, the learned trial Court has convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him, as aforesaid. 8. And the factual background leading to filing of the Crl. Petition No. 656/2015 is briefly stated as under: For the business purpose, the petitioner has approached the respondent No. 1, Joy Prakash Chouhan for lending a sum of Rs. 2 lac and then executing a promissory note in the form of money receipt, the respondent No. 1 had lent the aforesaid sum to the petitioner and that the petitioner had issued two post dated cheques towards repayment of aforesaid loan. Of the aforesaid two checques, one was cheque No. 793254, dated 01.06.2009, was for a sum Rs. 50,000/- only, drawn on State Bank of India, Beltola Branch. The respondent No. 1 thereafter, deposited the said cheque on 24.11.2009, with his banker State Bank of India, Gauhati High Court Branch for collection. But, the same returned unpaid with returning memo dated 30.11.2009, with the endorsement insufficient fund. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 informed the petitioner about the dishonour of the cheque and requested him to make payment of the dishonoured cheque amount, but, thereafter, the petitioner started avoiding the respondent No. 1 and as such the respondent No. 1 had sent demand notice to the petitioner on 30.12.2009, through his Advocate, by registered post, but, despite receipt of notice, the petitioner had failed to make payment of the amount and then the respondent No. 1 lodged a case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, against the petitioner and thereafter, hearing both the parties, the learned Court below has convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and also to pay a sum of Rs. 59,840/- only, as compensation. 9. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred appeals being Criminal Appeal No. 100/2013, arising out of C.R. Case No. 3675C/2010 and Criminal Appeal No. 52/2013, arising out of C.R. Case No. 598C/2010, before the Court of learned Addl. 59,840/- only, as compensation. 9. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred appeals being Criminal Appeal No. 100/2013, arising out of C.R. Case No. 3675C/2010 and Criminal Appeal No. 52/2013, arising out of C.R. Case No. 598C/2010, before the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC) No. 3, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati and also before the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati and after hearing both the parties, the learned Courts below was pleased to dismiss both the appeal. 10. Being highly aggrieved, the petitioner preferred these two criminal petitions being Crl. Petition No. 36/2016 and Crl. Petition No. 656/2015, on the ground that the petitioner has already paid the compensation amount to the respondent No. 1 in both the cases and having received the amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- and Rs. 59,840/- to the respondent No. 1 has issued one receipt to him on 13.08.2015, which is annexed with the petitions as Annexure-D and that since the entire amount has been paid in both the cases by the petitioner, the substantive sentence of four months in C.R. Case No. 3675C/2010 and also the substantive sentence in C.R. Case No. 598C/2010, for a period of three months, so handed down by the learned trial Court may be set aside and quashed. 11. Mr. Y.S. Mannan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after dismissal of the appeal in both the cases, the petitioner has paid the compensation amount to the respondent No. 1 and obtained relevant money receipt which is enclosed as Annexure-D, in both the petition i.e. Crl. Petition No. 36/2016 as well as in the Crl. Petition No. 656/2016 and that since the petitioner has paid the compensation amount, the substantive sentence of four months and three months, respectively awarded in both the complaint cases, may be set aside and quashed, as the cases under the N.I. Act are civil in nature and the liability arising there from is also civil and on payment of compensation, the petitioner is not required to undergo the substantive sentence of imprisonment. 12. Mr. Y.S. Mannan, learned counsel for the petitioner also referred some decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Triyambak S. Hegde vs. Sripad, 2022 (1) SCC 742 and Kaushalya Devi Massand vs. Roopkishore Khore, (2011) 4 SCC 593 and another judgment of Madras High Court in the case of P.K. Selvaraj vs. Umadevi Sundaram, in Crl. 12. Mr. Y.S. Mannan, learned counsel for the petitioner also referred some decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Triyambak S. Hegde vs. Sripad, 2022 (1) SCC 742 and Kaushalya Devi Massand vs. Roopkishore Khore, (2011) 4 SCC 593 and another judgment of Madras High Court in the case of P.K. Selvaraj vs. Umadevi Sundaram, in Crl. R.C. No. 161/2014 and M.P. No. 1/2014, in support of his submission. Mr. Mannan therefore, contended to allow both the petition by setting aside the substantive sentence, so awarded by the learned Court below in both the cases and also the impugned judgment and order, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC) No. 3, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati and by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in both the Criminal Appeals. 13. Par contra, Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. P.P., Assam, appearing for the respondent No. 2 i.e. State of Assam also conceded to the submission so advanced by Mr. Y.S. Mannan, learned counsel for the petitioner. 14. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the impugned judgments and orders, passed by the learned Courts below and also the case laws, referred by Mr. Mannan carefully. 15. It appears from the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides that there is no dispute regarding the facts narrated and discussed here in above. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is only confined to the fact that the cases under the N.I. Act are civil in nature, though criminal clothe is put on it and once the cheque amount is paid to the aggrieved party, the substantive sentence may be set aside and quashed. 16. In the case of Kaushalya Devi Massand (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Para-11 held that: “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 Penal Code, 1860 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.” 17. 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.” 17. In the case of P.K. Selvaraj (supra), the Madras High Court has held that the proceedings under Chapter XVII of the N.I. Act are quasi criminal in nature and that the gravemen of the proceedings though makes the act complained of as an offence, the object of the Act is really in order to get back through a summary proceedings, the amount contained in the dishonoured cheque together with interest and cost expeditiously and cheaply. The object of the provision being primarily compensatory, punitive element being mainly with the object of enforcing the compensatory element, the sentence of imprisonment can be modified in lieu of compensation paid which is twice the amount of the cheque. 18. While arriving at such a conclusion, the Madras High Court has relied upon a number of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in JIK Industries Ltd. vs. Amarlal V. Jumani, (2012) 3 SCC 255 , Kaushalya Devi Massand vs. Roopkishore Khore, (2011) 4 SCC 593 and Lafarge Aggregates and Concrete India (P) Ltd. vs. Sukarsh Azad, (2014) 13 SCC 779 . 19. Again a three Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Triyambak S. Hegde (supra), referring to its earlier decision in Kaushalya Devi Massand (supra) has set aside the imprisonment of six months, awarded to the appellant and enhanced the fine amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- to Rs. 2,50,000/- and directed him to pay the same within three months. 20. Here in this case, it appears that the cheque for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was issued on 30.03.2010 and the cheque for Rs. 50,000/- was issued on 01.06.2009 and thereafter, both the parties fought the legal battle in two different forums and thereafter, approached this Court and in the meantime, more than 12 years elapsed since the issuance of the same. 1,50,000/- was issued on 30.03.2010 and the cheque for Rs. 50,000/- was issued on 01.06.2009 and thereafter, both the parties fought the legal battle in two different forums and thereafter, approached this Court and in the meantime, more than 12 years elapsed since the issuance of the same. In the meantime, there would have been a lot of social and economic changes in the status of the parties and since the cheque amount with additional amount has already been paid to the respondent No. 1 by the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that the substantive sentence, so awarded by the learned Courts below, may not be required in the interest of justice and as such the same may be set aside and quashed. In arriving in such a conclusion, we derived authority from the case laws, specially in Triyambak S. Hegde (supra), discussed here in above. 21. Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed. The impugned judgments and orders, so far it relates to sentencing the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for four months and three months, respectively are set aside and quashed, in C.R. Case No. 3675C/2010 and in C.R. Case No. 598C/2010, including the impugned judgment and order in Crl. Appeal No. 100/2013 and Crl. Appeal No. 52/2013, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC) No. 3, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati and learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati. 22. However, the petitioner is directed to pay an additional amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousands) only to the respondent No. 1, in C.R. Case No. 3675C/2010 and Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousands) only in C.R. Case No. 598C/2010, within a period of three months from today. In default, he has to suffer imprisonment as directed by the learned trial Court. 23. In terms of above, these two petitions disposed of.