A valid compromise between parties can lead to the quashing of a conviction under the Negotiable Instruments Act if the complainant does not object, supported by Supreme Court precedent.

ORDER :

Ganesh Ram Meena, J.

1. An application (IA No.1051/2024) has been filed by the accused applicant/petitioner under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay occurred in filing the criminal revision petition.

2. Learned counsel for the accused applicant/ petitioner submits that the parties have entered into a compromise by way of an agreement dated 18.10.2024 and the complete amount as ordered by the learned trial court has been paid to the complainant/ respondent. Counsel further submits that the delay has occurred because of some confusion and misunderstanding due to talks of compromise between the parties.

3. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused applicant/ petitioner and more particularly the fact that parties have entered into the compromise and the amount has already been paid by the accused applicant/ petitioner to the complainant/ respondent, this Court deems just and proper to condone the delay in filing the aforesaid criminal revision petition.

4. Accordingly, the application for condition of delay is allowed and the delay occurred in filing the criminal revision petition is condoned.

5. The instant criminal revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. for quashing and setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.07.2015 passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vijaynagar, District Ajmer (for short ‘the learned trial court’), in Criminal Original Case No.505/2011, by which the accused petitioner has been convicted for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to one year Simple Imprisonment and also with a fine of Rs.2,50,000/- and in default thereof he has been directed to undergo one month additional simple imprisonment which has been upheld vide judgment dated 04.05.2019 by the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Beawar, District Ajmer (Raj.) [For short ‘the learned Appellate Court’] in Criminal Appeal No.53/2015.

6. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner submits that both the parties have entered into a compromise through an agreement dated 18.10.2024 filed by the complainant/ respondent, which is duly notarized by the Notary Public, which is available on the record, in which it has been mentioned that he has received the complete amount from the accused petitioner. It has been further mentioned in the affidavit that neither any amount is due against the accused petitioner nor any dispute remains with him and he does not want to proceed further against the accused petitioner and wants to settle the matter amicably on the basis of the compromise. It has also been mentioned by the complainant /respondent in the aforesaid agreement that if the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court which has been affirmed by the learned Appellate Court are quashed and set aside then he has no objection.

7. Both the learned counsels in support of their submissions have placed reliance upon the order dated 06.01.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Rajinder Singh Vs. Krishan Dutt, Criminal Appeal No.___ of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.___ of 2025) (@ Diary No.41934/2024), which is reproduced as under:-

“Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

On account of dishonor of cheque of Rs. 2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakh), proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were drawn against the appellant. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate vide its order dated 28.12.2021 convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo one year simple imprisonment and directed him to pay compensation of