JUDGMENT :

Sumeet Goel, J.

1. The present petition has been filed impugning the judgment dated 08.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal & the judgment dated 03.10.2017 as also the order dated 04.10.2017 passed by learned Sub Judicial Magistrate, Guhla, District Kaithal, Haryana whereby the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, during the pendency of the proceedings in the present revision petition, the parties were referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court wherein they have entered into a settlement which has been reduced into writing vide settlement deed dated 26.09.2024, relevant whereof reads as under:-

"That during the mediation, today first party has paid Rs.20,000/- to the second party and it is agreed between both the parties that first party shall pay an amount of Rs. 2,20,000/-(Rupees two lakhs and twenty thousand) to the second party within the period of two months i.e. till 30.11.2024 and the second party has no objection if the present Revision Petition is allowed in view of the present compromise. In default of payment Rs.2,20,000/-(Rupees two lakh twenty thousand), the second party is free to file an application for revival of the criminal revision."

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-complainant has ratified the factum of compromise/settlement deed dated 26.09.2024 entered into between the parties before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. Accordingly, he has iterated that respondent-complainant has no objection in case the offence permitted to be compounded and the petitioner is ordered to be acquitted.

4. Learned State counsel has submitted that he has no objection in case the offence is permitted to be compounded by this Court and the petitioner is ordered to be acquitted.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused the available record.

6. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H., AIR 2010(SC) 1907, relevant whereof reads thus:

"15. With regard to the progression of litigation in cheque bouncing cases, the learned Attorney General has urged this Court to frame guidelines for a graded scheme of imposing costs on parties who unduly delay compounding of the offence. It was submitted that the requirement of deposit of the costs will act as a deterrent for delayed composition, since at present, free and easy compounding of offences at any stage, however belated, gives an incentive to the drawer of the cheque to delay settling the cases for years. An application for compounding made after several years not only results in the system being burdened but the complainant is also deprived of effective justice. In view of this submission, we direct that the following guidelines be followed:-

Let it also be clarified that any costs imposed in accordance with these guidelines should be deposited with the Legal Services Authority operating at the level of the Court before which compounding takes place. For instance, in case of compounding during the pendency of proceedings before a Magistrate's Court or a Court of Sessions, such costs should be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority. Likewise, costs imposed in connection with composition before the High Court should be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority and those imposed in connection with composition before the Supreme Court should be deposited with the National Legal Services Authority.

xxx xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx xxx

17. We are also conscious of the view that the judicial endorsement of the above quoted guidelines could be seen as an act of judicial law-making and therefore an intrusion into the legislative domain. It must be kept in mind that Section 147 of the Act does not carry any guidance on how to proceed