JUDGMENT

Sanjiv Berry, J. (Oral)

By way of the present criminal revision petition the petitioner has assailed the judgment dated 22.07.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mansa, upholding the judgment dated 21.09.2017 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa, convicting the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act' of 1881) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two year and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 5 days.

2. During the pendency of this petition, it had been represented by the petitioner that the matter has been amicably resolved amongst the parties and consequently this Court vide order dated 25.08.2022 had directed the parties to appear before the Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate and to get their statements recorded qua the factum of compromise.

3. Report of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa has been received, as per which the statements of the parties have been recorded and it has been opined that the parties have voluntarily entered into a compromise and that the compromise/settlement is genuine and not the result of any pressure or coercion.

4. A perusal of the said compromise dated 19.08.2022 (Annexure A-1) would show that an amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- has been paid by the petitioner to the complainant -Bhushan Kumar and the said Bhushan Kumar has submitted that as per the said terms of compromise, he has no objection, if the revision petition is accepted.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2- Bhushan Kumar, has reiterated the factum of the compromise having been effected between the parties is genuine and bonafide having been entered into without any coercion, undue influence or pressure and the same would help in bringing out peace and harmony between the parties. He as such, prayed that the present petition be allowed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment dated 29.09.2021 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012 titled as "Ramgopal & Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh." and has prayed that the present petition be allowed.

7. Learned State counsel has submitted that the present case emanates from a complaint under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 and thus, the State does not have any role in the present case.

8. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ramgopal and Anr.'s case (supra) has discussed in detail the power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. along with other issues. The relevant portion of said judgment is reproduced as under:-

"2. The prosecution version, arising out of FIR dated 3rd November 2000, Police Station Ambah, Morena, M.P. is that on account of certain monetary dispute, the Appellants abused and assaulted Padam Singh (Complainant). Appellant No.1 is alleged to have struck the Complainant with a pharsa, which resultantly cut off the little finger of his left hand. Appellant No.2 also struck lathi blows on the body of the Complainant. Appellants were thereafter committed for trial under Sections 294, 323 and 326 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, 'IPC') and Section 3 of the Prevention of Atrocities (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1989. Upon analyzing the evidence, the Learned Judicial Magistrate(FC), Ambah, convicted the Appellants under Sections 294, 323 and 326 read with 34 IPC with a maximum sentence of three years under Section 326 read with 34 IPC.

xxx xxx xxx

12.