Compounding of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is permitted, subject to the payment of graded cost as per the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court.

ORDER

1. Learned counsels from both side in all these four matters along with their respective clients as identified by them, are physically present in the Court.

2. In all these four revision petitions, the present petitioner has challenged the confirmation of his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the N.I. Act). The judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the learned XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the Trial Court) in all these four matters were confirmed by the Fast Tract Court-III, Mayohall, Bangalore (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the first appellate Court) in the Criminal Appeals preferred by the present petitioner, who was the accused in the Trial Court.

3. The respondent herein was the complainant in the Trial Court. Now both the parties have come up with memorandum of settlement in all these four matters, in which regard, they have filed separate interlocutory applications, i.e. I.A.No.2/2022 in each petition, under Section 147 of the N.I. Act read with Section 320 (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the Cr.P.C.).

4. All these four interlocutory applications (I.A.No.2/2022) along with their annexures filed in these four revision petitions are identical in their sum and substance. In all the applications, both parties have filed joint affidavit also.

5. In the memorandum of settlement filed along with the interlocutory applications in all the four matters, both parties have carved out the terms of settlement entered into between them, the summary of which is that, the present respondent in all these four matters, by accepting a total sum of 9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs only) payable to her by the present petitioner (accused), has agreed for the acquittal of the present petitioner (accused) from the alleged offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and also has agreed for refunding of the deposits said to have been made by the petitioner herein in the Trial Court as well as in this Court.

6. The learned counsels from both side have made their submissions on the lines of the interlocutory applications filed under Section 147 of the N.I. Act in all these petitions and the memorandum of settlement and have prayed for accepting the applications and permitting the parties to compromise as mentioned in the applications.

7. The enquiry made with the parties who are present physically before the Court also reveals that both parties have, with their free consent and out of their own volition, without being influenced by undue influence, duress or misrepresentation or by mistake, have entered into the terms of settlement in their best interest. Hence, there is no embargo to deny them the permission to settle the matter.

8. Accordingly, the present respondent, as a complainant, who has acknowledged the receipt of a sum of 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) in the form of demand draft dated 31-05-2022 said to have been given to her by the accused (petitioner herein) now, acknowledges the receipt of another sum of 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Only) from the accused (petitioner herein) in the form of another demand draft dated 31-05-2022 drawn in her favour and thus acknowledges the receipt of a total sum of 6,00,000/- + 3,00,000/- = 9,00,000/- towards full and final settlement of the agreed terms with respect to the present four petitions. She has further agreed that the deposits, if any, made by the present petitioner in these four petitions either in the Trial Court or in this Court be released in his favour.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner, upon instructions from his client submits that, the graded cost payable by virtue of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H reported in AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 1907, which comes to a total sum of