The court permitted the compounding of an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act following an amicable settlement between the parties, emphasizing the procedural requirements for such compounding.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

Petitioner-Ranjeet Singh Rana has filed the present Criminal Revision Petition against the judgment dated 09.07.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as the ‘First Appellate Court’), in RBT Criminal Appeal No.28-P/X/2024/2008, titled as ‘Rajeev Nag versus State of H.P. & Ors.’.

2. By way of judgment dated 09.07.2024, the learned First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal, filed by the petitioner, against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.07.2008, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class(I), Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter called as the ‘trial Court’), in Criminal Complaint No.182-III/2004, titled as ‘Ranjeet Singh Rana versus Rajeev Nag’.

3. Vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.07.2008, 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 rigorous imprisonment, for a period of one year and to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- 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 Cr.MP No.1190 of 2025, under Section 147 of NI Act, for compounding of offence, on the ground that the parties have amicably settled the matter.

6. Statements of the petitioner, as well as, learned counsel, appearing for respondents No.1(i) & 1(ii), have been recorded, in which, they have deposed that the dispute, with regard to Cheque No.4154347, has been settled between the parties.

7. Today i.e. 28.03.2025, Mr. Ravinder Singh Jaswal, Advocate, appearing for respondents No.1(i) & 1(ii), under instructions, has stated, regarding the factum, as to why, respondent Ranjeet Singh Rana (since deceased) had filed the complaint against the accused (petitioner), 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 now been settled with the petitioner.

8. According to the learned counsel, appearing for respondents No.1(i) & 1(ii), 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 has also stated in the aforesaid terms. He has deposed that he has paid the entire compensation amount and nothing is due against him. 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 50% of the compounding fee with the Member Secretary, H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Shimla and 50% of the compounding fee with H.P. High Court Staff Welfare Organization, Shimla, within a period of six 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 trial Court.

12. Considering the statement of the parties, as well as, considering the fact that the matter has been settled between the accused (petitioner) and the respondent party,