ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25th April, 2024 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi on Criminal Revision No. 202 of 2019.

3. The appellant was convicted by the trial court for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881[N.I. Act] and sentenced to simple imprisonment for 3 (three) months; also compensation of Rs. 1,18,000/- (Rupees one lakh eighteen thousand) was directed to be paid to the respondent no.2 (complainant). An appeal was carried before the sessions court, which failed. The appellant thereafter approached the High Court in revision but without success. By the impugned order, the revision came to be dismissed.

4. In the course of hearing of this appeal, we have been informed by Mr. Gaurav, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Surya Kant, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 that the parties have since settled their inter se disputes and differences and the terms of settlement have been reduced to writing in the form of 'Terms of Settlement', which is Annexure P-4 to the paper book. Money receipts bearing the signature of the respondent no.2 are also part of the paper book.

5. Since the money receipts evince that the respondent no.2 has received Rs. 1,18,000/- (Rupees one lakh eighteen thousand) towards full and final settlement of his dues from the appellant and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the said respondent has no objection, we allow compounding of the offence in terms of Section 147 of the N.I. Act, set aside the impugned order of the High Court together with the appellate order and the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court, and acquit the appellant of the charge against him subject to the condition that within a period of two months from date, the appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- with the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority. This deposit is directed in terms of the guidelines laid down by this Court in the decision in Damodar S Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H. , (2010) 5 SCC 663 .

6. The appellant is discharged of his bail bond. However, should the appellant fail to make the requisite deposit, as ordered, law shall take its own course.

7. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed on the aforesaid terms.

8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.