JUDGMENT

Mr. Aman Chaudhary, J.

Present petition has been filed against the impugned judgment of conviction dated 16.05.2017 and order of sentence dated 06.07.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurugram vide which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced for one year simple imprisonment under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. Briefly put the facts of the are are that the petitioner-accused had taken friendly loan of Rs.15,00,000/- from the complainant. In discharge of his liability the petitioner-accused issued a cheque bearing No. 037357 dated 01.02.2015 for Rs.15,00,000/- in favour of the complainant. That on the assurance and promise of the petitioner-accused that the said cheque would be en-cashed and honoured on presentation, complainant deposited the cheque. However, to the utter surprise of the complainant, banker of the petitioner-accused returned the said cheque to the banker of the complainant with the remarks "Fund Insufficient". In turn, the banker of the complainant intimated the complainant about dishonour of the said cheque vide return memo dated 03.02.2015. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 24.03.2015 to the petitioner-accused but accused failed to make the payment. Hence, the present complaint.

3. The process against the accused were initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 vide order dated 01.06.2015.

4. Pursuant to order dated 01.06.2015 accused appeared and was released on bail. Thereafter copy of complaint along with accompanying documents were supplied to the accused free of costs as envisaged under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. On finding prima facie case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act 1881, notice of accusation was served upon the accused vide order dated 01.12.2015 by this court to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6. In order to prove his complaint, complainant entered into the witness box as CW1 and tendered his duly sworn affidavit (Ex. CW1/A) in evidence and his documentary evidence. Thereafter, the complainant vide his separate statement dated 18.01.2017 closed the complainant evidence.

7. Statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded on 20.01.2017 in which accused denied all the allegations raised against him.

8. In order to substantiate his above stated defence and to rebut the case of the complainant, accused did not examine any witness in his defence. Since accused has failed to conclude the defence evidence, the defence evidence was closed by court order on 27.02.2017.

9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence brought on record, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the complainant has successfully proved the case, bringing home guilt against the petitioner-accused. Accordingly, the accused-petitioner was convicted and sentenced as mentioned in para no.1 above.

10. Aggrieved, convict-petitioner filed appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram vide impugned judgment dated 24.02.2020.

11. Hence, the present revision petitions.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that since, the matter stands compromised between the parties, the petitioner prays for compounding of the offence.

13. Learned counsel for the LRs of respondent No.1 also admits the factum so compromise and states that he has no objection, if the prayer is accepted.

14. This Court on the request made by learned counsel for the parties had referred the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, wherein it was settled on 22.08.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of the settlement agreement Rs.8 lacs were to be