The court permitted the compounding of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act after the parties settled their dispute, allowing the petitioner to be acquitted.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

1. Petitioner-Bal Krishan Thakur has filed the present revision petition against the judgment dated 12.09.2024, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shimla District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellate Court’), in Criminal Appeal No. RBT94-S/10 of 2024/22, titled as Bal Krishan Thakur vs. Aseem Trading Company.

2. By way of judgment dated 12.09.2024, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed, bythe petitioner, against the judgment of conviction dated 02.07.2022 and order of sentence dated 21.07.2022, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.3, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’), in Case No. 341-3 of 2016, titled as Aseem Trading Company vs. Bal Krishan Thakur.

3. Vide judgment of conviction dated 02.07.2022 and order of sentence dated 21.07.2022, learned trial Court has convicted the petitioner, for the offence, punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NI Act’) and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment, for a period of one year and to pay a compensation of Rs.2,46,176/- to the complainant.

4. After dismissal of the appeal by the learned Appellate Court, the present revision petition has been preferred.

5. During the pendency of the present petition, the parties have settled the matter. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed application bearing Cr.MP No.1834 of 2025, for permitting the parties to compound the offence, on the ground that the matter has been settled between the parties.

6. Statements of both the parties have been recorded, in which, they both have deposed that the dispute with regard to Cheque No.258532, dated28.06.2016, has been settled between the parties.

7. Today, the accused is present before this Court. He has deposed that he has been convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court vide judgment of conviction dated 02.07.2022 and order of sentence dated 21.07.2022.

8. Against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, he had filed the appeal before the learned Appellate Court and the learned Appellate Court has also dismissed his appeal. Now, he is before this Court, in the present revision petition.

9. In addition to this, the accused has also submitted that during the pendency of the revision petition, the matter has been compromised between him and the complainant. He has also deposed that he has paid a sum of Rs.1,70,000/-, to the complainant during the pendency of the case before the learned trial Court. He has also deposed that he has deposited a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- before the learned trial Court. He has also deposed that today, he has paid a sum of Rs.40,000/-, in the account of the complainant, through Googlepay, as such, he has paid/deposited the settled amount of Rs.3,35,000/-.

10. The petitioner has also deposed that on the basis of the said compromise, the present petition may kindly be allowed by setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, referred to above, and he may kindly be acquitted of the charge.

11. Respondent has also made the similar statement and has prayed that the amount deposited by the petitioner before the learned trial Court, may kindly be released, in favour of complainant. He has also deposed that he has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed and the accused is acquitted by setting aside the judgment of conviction dated 02.07.2022 and order of sentence dated 21.07.2022.

12. In addition to this, the petitioner has also put forward the indigent circumstances, by stating that he is a poor person and a lenient view may kindly be taken, in the matter of compounding fee.

13. On the basis of the statements, so made by the parties, one thing is clear that the matter has been settled between the parties and in pursuance of the said settlement, the petitioner has deposited the entire amount of compensation.

14. According to the respondent-complainant, the