IMPORTANT POINT
When once guidelines are issued in the matter of entertaining the applications for compounding the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, they are to be made applicable to all the cases pending in whatever stage they are.

R. Seshasayyana Reddy, J.—This criminal revision case is directed against the order, dated 22.12.2012 passed in Criminal MP No.753 of 2012 in Criminal Appeal No.59 of 2011 on the file of II-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional Sessions Judge directed the parties to follow the guidelines of the Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H.1, to compound the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, (for short, ‘the N.I. Act’);

Facts, in brief, are:

The petitioner is the accused and the respondent is the complainant in CC No.241 of 2007 on the file of III-Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. The accused has been prosecuted for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on the complaint filed on 2.4.2007. The learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, on full-fledged trial, found the petitioner/accused guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, convicted him accordingly and sentenced him to suffer SI for one year and pay a fine of Rs.5,000 in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period three months, by judgment, dated 29.3.2011. The petitioner/accused assailed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in CC No.241 of 2007 by filing Criminal Appeal No.59 of 2011 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. Pending the appeal, the petitioner/accused and the respondent/complainant settled their disputes. Thereupon, the petitioner/accused and the respondent/ complainant moved Criminal MP No.753 of 2012 under Section 147 of the N.I. Act to record compromise and set aside the conviction passed in CC No.241 of 2007, dated 29.3.2011. The learned Additional Sessions Judge directed the parties to follow the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu’s case (supra), in compounding the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, by an order, dated 22.12.2012. Hence this criminal revision case by the accused.

3. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent complainant

4. It is contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused that the guidelines as to payment of certain percentage .of amount to the Legal Services Authority in the event of the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act is compounded, cannot be made applicable to the present case since the complaint came to be instituted much prior to the issuance of the guidelines. In support of his contentions, reliance has been placed on the judgment of Jharkhand High Court in Krishna Prasad v. State of Jharkhand2, wherein it has been held as hereunder:

“It is relevant to mention that in all the interlocutory applications the petitioner as well as the opposite party No.2 lender are consistent that they have resolved the dispute and have no longer grievance against each other which could be possible only by the intervention of the well wishers and the friends. The petitioner borrower contended that he has paid Rs.19,500 at the first instance to the opposite party No.2 against the receipt on the letter pad issued by the opposite party No.2. Though it has not been clearly mentioned in the counter-affidavit that opposite party No.2 has received the entire amount on his full and final settlement but has admitted that the dispute has been resolved and he is not inclined to pursue the matter and at the instance of the opposite party No.2, the petitioner was admitted to bail during pendency of this criminal revision. Facts have been reiterated in all the three interlocutory applications that the dispute has been resolved and that the complainant/opposite party No.2 is not inclined to pursue the matter further. Contents of the interlocutory applications have been supported by the petitioner as well a