The court allows the compounding of an offence under the Negotiable Instrument Act following a compromise between the parties, emphasizing the importance of justice and judicial efficiency.

JUDGMENT :

The present Criminal Revision No. 27 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 27.07.2019 passed by the Sri Ravi Ranjan, learned Additional Sessions Judge IV, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 132 of 2018 and Criminal Appeal No. 139 of 2018 whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge IV, Dhanbad has dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioner and one Md. Nizamuddin by affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.06.2018 passed by Ms. Ritwika Singh, the Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Dhanbad in Complaint Case No. 1564 of 2012/T.R. No. 1843 of 2018 whereby the petitioner and one Md. Nizamuddin have been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced to undergoS.I. for a period of one (1) year each and to pay Rs. 13,50,000/ (Rupees Thirteen Lakh Fifty Thousand) each as compensation by the petitioner and one Md. Nizamuddin.

2. I. A. No. 471 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 the 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 and the petitioner has paid the entire amount of Rs. 13,49,500/ to the opposite party no. 2 as per the agreement dated 05.11.2024 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. Kumar Nilesh, Advocate under the instruction of Mr. Kalayan Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of 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 receivedRs. 13,49,500/- from the petitioner 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. No. 471 of 2025.

8. It appears that in light of compromise petitioner filed by both the sides, vide order dated 17.01.2025, this Court has exempted the petitioner from surrendering before the learned Court below.

9. Para 5 to 12 of the I. A. No. 471 of 2025, filed on behalf of the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2, read as follows:

“Para-5 : That it is submitted that matter has been settled between the parties and the opposite party no.2 has also entered into an agreement for compromise on 05.11.2024, which was duly signed by opposite party no.2 and son of the petitioner.

Para-6 :-That it is further submitted that the opposite party no.2 has received the dues amount to his satisfaction.

Para-7:- That it is further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 17.10.2024.

Para-8:- That it is further submitted that the opposite party no.2 has received the entire amount and is duly agreed to settle the dispute between them and is not willing to c