Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – ss. 138, 139 – Parallel prosecutions arising from a single transaction u/s.138 – Impermissibility of – Dishonour of cheques – First set of complaints filed – Compromise – First complaint pending, cheques issued pursuant to the compromise deed also dishonoured – Second complaint filed – Both the complaints if can be pursued simultaneously – Held: No – A settlement agreement effaces the original complaint – Non-compliance of the terms of the settlement agreement or dishonour of cheques issued subsequent to it gives rise to a fresh cause of action – Allowing prosecution under both sets of complaints would be contrary to the purpose of the enactment – First complaint quashed – Further, Single Judge erred in quashing the criminal complaint on a priori reasoning that the second set of cheques issued in pursuance of the compromise deed were not in discharge of a liability – Mere fact that a suit was instituted challenging the compromise deed would not justify exercising jurisdiction u/s.482 – It would continue to be valid until a decree of the appropriate court setting it aside is passed – High Court failed to notice the import of the presumption u/s.139 which can only be displaced on the basis of evidence adduced at the trial – Judgment of the Single Judge quashing the second complaint is set aside – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 409, 506(1).Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: s.138 – Ingredients of – Discussed.  s.138 – Purpose of – Held: Primary purpose of s.138 is to ensure compensation to the complainant – The Act also allows for parties to enter into a compromise, both during the pendency of the complaint and even after the conviction of the accused.s.138 – Nature of offence under – Held: It is quasi-criminal, while it arises out of a civil wrong, the law however, imposes a criminal penalty in the form of imprisonment or fine.  s.139 – Presumption under – Burden of proof – Discussed.