Compromise between parties in a Section 138 NI Act case allows for quashing of conviction, provided conditions for compounding are met.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

1. Petitioner-Sunil Kumar has filed the present Criminal Revision Petition against the judgment dated 19.03.2022, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Solan, District Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘First Appellate Court’) in Criminal Appeal No. 31ASJ-II/10 of 2020, titled as Sunil Kumar Vs. Ved Prakash.

2. By way of judgment dated 19.03.2022, the learned First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal, filed by the petitioner, against the judgment of conviction dated 21.03.2020 and order of sentence dated 03.10.2020, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P. (hereinafter called as the ‘trial Court’), in Case No. 91/3 of 2017, titled as Ved Prakash Vs. Sunil Kumar.

3. Vide judgment of conviction dated 21.03.2020 and order of sentence dated 03.10.2020, the 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 month and 15 days and to pay a fine of Rs.1,60,000/- to the complainant.

4. After dismissal of the appeal by the learned First Appellate Court, the present Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred.

5. Now, the petitioner has moved application, bearing CrMP No.22 of 2025, under Section 147 of NI Act, for compounding of offence on the ground that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties, with the intervention of the respectables of the society.

6. Statements of both the parties have been recorded, in which, they have deposed that the dispute, with regard to Cheque No.268754, dated 10.06.2017, has been settled between them.

7. Today i.e. 06.03.2025, complainant has stated on oath, regarding the factum, as to why, he has filed the complaint against the accused, in which, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence have been passed, which have unsuccessfully been assailed, before the learned First Appellate Court. He has also deposed that the matter has been compromised with the petitioner and the petitioner has paid the entire amount of compensation and now, nothing is due against the petitioner.

8. According to the complainant, since, the entire amount of compensation has been paid by the petitioner, therefore, he has no objection, if the present revision petition is allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence are ordered to be quashed and set aside and the petitioner is acquitted from the offence, punishable under Section 138 of NI Act.

9. Today, petitioner is also present before this Court and he has also stated in the aforesaid terms. He has also deposed that on the basis of the compromise, the present petition may be allowed by setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, referred to above, and he may be acquitted from the offence, punishable under Section 138 of NI Act.

10. In addition to this, the petitioner has also put forward the indigent circumstances, by stating that some relaxation may be given in the compounding fee.

11. Apart from this, the petitioner-accused has also given an undertaking that he will deposit the compounding fee, within a period of ten weeks from today and in case, he fails to deposit the compounding fee, within the stipulated period, the revision petition, may be treated as dismissed and in that eventuality, he will surrender before the learned trial Court to undergo the substantive sentence, imposed upon him, by the learned