The court permitted the compounding of an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act after the parties settled the matter, leading to the acquittal of the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

Petitioner-Avinash Sharma has filed the present revision petition against the judgment dated 04.09.2023, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohru District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellate Court’), in Criminal Appeal RBT No.68-R/10 of2023, titled as Avinash Sharma versus Krishan Kumar.

2. By way of judgment dated 04.09.2023, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed, by the petitioner, against the judgment of conviction dated 07.01.2023 and order of sentence dated 09.01.2023, passed by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’), in Case No.232- 3 of 2018, titled as Krishan Kumar versus Avinash Sharma.

3. Vide judgment of conviction dated 07.01.2023 and order of sentence dated 09.01.2023, 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 six months and to pay a compensation of Rs.80,000/- 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.1809 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 learned counsel representing the the parties have been recorded, in which, they both have deposed that the dispute with regard to Cheque No.051572, dated 10.05.2018, has been settled between the parties.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has deposed that the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court vide judgment of conviction dated 07.01.2023 and order of sentence dated 09.01.2023. Against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner had filed the appeal before the learned Appellate Court and the learned Appellate Court has also dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Now, the petitioner is before this Court, in the present revision petition.

8. In addition to this, learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that during the pendency of the revision petition, the matter has been compromised between the petitioner and the complainant.

9. Learned counsel has also deposed that the petitioner has paid the entire amount to the complainant. He has also deposed that a sum of Rs.16,000/-, deposited by the petitioner before the learned trial Court, may kindly be refunded back to him.

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

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further 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 the petitioner may kindly be acquitted of the charge.

12. Learned counsel for the respondent has also made the similar statement and has deposed that the complainant has no objection, in case the amount deposited by the petitioner, before the learned trial Court, is released, in favour of the petitioner. He has also deposed that the complainant has no objection, in case the present petition is allowed and the accused is acquitted by setting aside the judgment of conviction dated 07.01.2023 and order of sentence dated 09.01.2023.

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 paid the entire amount of com