JUDGMENT

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. - The instant criminal revision petitions have been maintained by the petitioner-accused-convict (hereinafter to be called as "the accused") against the judgments passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., in Criminal Appeals No. 12, 13, 14 and 15 of 2018, whereby the judgments and orders of conviction and sentence, dated 18.04.2018/23.04.2018, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manali, H.P., in Criminal Cases No. 96-1/2011/252- III/2011, 127-1/2011/253-III/2011, 180-1/2011/227-III/2011 and 246-1/2011/19-III/2012, were upheld.

2. Briefly stating facts giving rise to the present petitions are that in the months of November and December 2010, the petitioner-accused borrowed sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- from the respondent-complainant (hereinafter to be called as "the complainant") for meeting out domestic and business expenses. The accused, in order to discharge his liability, issued four different cheques bearing No. 181451, 181452, 181453 and 181454, dated 01.01.2011, 01.02.2011, 01.03.2011 and 30.03.2011, amounting to Rs. 45,000/- (each) in favour of the complainant. When the said cheques were presented in the bank, the same were returned, being dishonored, vide memos, dated 19.01.2011, 07.02.2011, 17.03.2011 and 18.05.2011 with the remarks "Funds Insufficient". Though, the complainant issued legal notice to the accused, however, no payment was made by the accused.

Accordingly, the complaints came filed against the accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manali, H.P., vide judgments and orders dated 18.04.2018/23.04.2018, convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and awarded lumpsum compensation to the tune of Rs. 65,000/- (in each case) in favour of the complainant. Subsequently, the accused preferred the appeals before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, H.P., however, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, H.P., dismissed the appeals filed by the accused and affirmed the judgments and orders of conviction passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manali, H.P., Hence the present petitions.

3. Ms. Poonam Gehlot, Advocate, for the petitioner- accused has argued that as the amount in question has been paid to the complainant and the complainant has compromised the matter with the petitioner, vide compromise deed, placed on the file, the offence be compounded and the petitioner be acquitted of the offence he was convicted.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Advocate, for the respondent-complainant has argued that as the amount in question has been received by his client and he has entered into a compromise with the petitioner, he may be permitted to withdraw the present complaints in view of the compromise and the judgments/orders of conviction and sentence be set aside.

5. The Honble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663 and Madhya Pradesh Legal Services Authority vs. Prateek Jain and another (2014) 10 SCC 690 , has held that the Court may reduce compounding fee for given facts and circumstances of a particular case and present case is a fit case of exemption of compounding, as the petitioner is a poor penniless worker and he has managed to pay the compensation/cheque amount to the complainant with extreme difficulty.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the records, including compromise deed, this Court finds that as the amount in question has been received by the complainant and he does not want the accused to get convicted, it would be in the interest of justice if the parties are permitted to get the matter compounded in light of the compromise arrived at inter se them. So, taking into consideration the ratio of law laid down by Honble Apex Court (supra) and overall a