ORDER :

Farjand Ali, J.

An application under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner for condonation of delay.

2. For the reasons and grounds mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.

3. The delay of 146 days in filing the instant criminal revision petition is condoned.

4. Let the instant revision be treated within limitation.

5. The petitioner has approached this Court for challenging the judgment dated 10.01.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.01, Sriganganagar in Cr. Appeal No.20/2019 (CIS No.208/2019) affirming the judgment dated 08.07.2019 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No.1, Sriganganagar in Criminal Case No.520/2017 whereby, the petitioner was convicted for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and was sentenced to two years' simple imprisonment and further ordered to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.13,50,000/- to the complainant.

6. Briefly stated, that facts of the case are that the petitioner was prosecuted for committing an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After completion of trial, he was found guilty and thus, was convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court. The judgment of conviction was assailed by the petitioner by way of filing a criminal appeal but the same has been dismissed vide judgment dated 10.01.2023, hence the present revision petition has been filed.

7. The parties have entered into a compromise and have settled the dispute amicably. Copy of Compromise deed dated 04.09.2023 has been placed on record. Parties have resolved the dispute since the petitioner has paid the due amount satisfying the respondent-claimant. As per section 147 of the N.I. Act, an offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act is compoundable without taking permission of the court. Thus, it is jointly prayed that the judgment of conviction as well as the order of appeal be quashed and set aside.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record and gone through both the judgments as well as the compromise deed wherein it is recited that the parties have resolved their dispute amicably and the complainant does not wish to continue the proceedings.

9. Since the precious time of the court has been wasted in the entire criminal proceedings and now, the parties have arrived at a compromise at a belated stage, therefore, it is deemed appropriate to impose cost of proceedings upon the accused.

10. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties and the statutory provision in this regard, the revision petition is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.07.2019 passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No.1, Sriganganagar in Criminal Case No.520/2017 and the judgment in appeal dated 10.01.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1 Sriganganagar in Cr. Appeal No.20/2019 are quashed and set aside. The accused is acquitted from the charges. However, since the dispute has been resolved after long lapse of time and the precious time of the Courts have been spent by the parties, thus, in light of the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. , reported in AIR 2010 SC 1907 it is deemed appropriate to impose a cost of Rs.20,000/- upon the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to deposit a cost of Rs.20,000/- before the District Legal Services Authority, Sriganganagar within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. It is further made clear that if the cost of proceedings i.e. Rs.20,000/- is not deposited by the p