The court allows compounding of offences under the Negotiable Instrument Act in personal disputes without public policy concerns, enabling parties to resolve matters amicably.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY PRASAD, J.

I. A. (Cr.) No. 1202 of 2025

The present Criminal Revision No. 175 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 19.07.2024 passed by the Sri Anjanee Anuj, learned Additional Sessions Judge-XII, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 147 of 2022 whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge-XII, Dhanbad has dismissed the appeal by affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.11.2022 passed by Shri Rakesh Raushan, Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Dhanbad in Complaint Case No. 2155 of 2019 whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of one (1) year and six (6) months and to pay Rs. 3,80,000/- ( Rupees Three Lakh Eighty Thousand) to the complainant under Section 357 (3) of the Cr. P. C.

2. I. A. (Cr.) No. 1202 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of both the sides by way of a joint compromise application.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgments and order passed by the learned Court below are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in law. It is further submitted that the case has been compromised between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 and now opposite party no. 2 does not want to proceed further in this case. It is submitted that the case has been settled between the petitioner and opposite party no. 2 on payment of Rs. 2,95,000/- to the opposite party no. 2-complainant through Demand Draft as full and final settlement, which has been mentioned in para-4 to 14 of I. A. (Cr.) No. 1202 of 2025 and hence, the impugned judgments and order may be set aside and the petitioner may be acquitted.

5. On the other hand, no objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the State.

6. Mr. Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for the O. P. No. 2 has submitted that the case has been compromised between the parties and also admitted the factum of compromise between the petitioner and the O. P. No. 2. It is further submitted that opposite party no. 2 has no grievance against the petitioner and opposite party no. 2 has received Rs. 2,95,000/- by way of Demand Draft from the petitioner on 17.09.2024 and hence, he does not want to proceed further in this case.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the I. A. (Cr.) No. 1202 of 2025.

8. It appears that in light of compromise petitioner filed by both the sides, vide order dated 07.02.2025, this Court has exempted the petitioner from surrendering before the learned Court below.

9. Para- 3 to 8 of the I. A. (Cr.) No. 1202 of 2025, filed on behalf of the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2, read as follows:-

“Para-3:- That it is humbly stated that the parties hereto have quite sensibly thought over the issue of future prospects including both impact and benefits and have arrived on conclusion that it would be better that the parties may get settled the dispute.

Para-4:- That the parties have compromised their dispute with respect to the subject matter of Complaint Case No. 2155 of 2019 and pursuant to the compromise entered into between the parties and in pursuant to the said compromise the petitioner has paid an amount of Rs. 2,95,000/- through demand draft as full and final settlement to the Opposite party no.2 in connection with the aforesaid cases.

Para-5:- That it is humbly stated that in view of the compromise taken place between the parties, the impugned judgments of conviction as well as the order of sentence may be set-aside, as the parties have no grievance against each other.

Para-6:- That it is humbly stated and submitted that since the dispute is purely a personal/monetary dispute between the parties and no public policy is involved, it is a fit case where t