JUDGMENT :

Sumeet Goel, J.

The present petition has been filed impugning the judgment dated 23.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad & the judgment and order of sentence dated 16/21.05.2018 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tohana, 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, since the parties have amicably settled their dispute(s), the matter may be compounded and the petitioner be acquitted.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant-respondent No.2 has ratified the factum of compromise/settlement having been arrived at between the parties. Accordingly, he has iterated that the respondent No.2-complainant has no objection in case the offence is permitted to be compounded and the petitioner is ordered to be acquitted.

4. Learned State counsel submits 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:-

(i) In the circumstances, it is proposed as follows:

(a) That directions can be given that the Writ of Summons be suitably modified making it clear to the accused that he could make an application for compounding of the offences at the first or second hearing of the case and that if such an application is made, compounding may be allowed by the court without imposing any costs on the accused.

(b) If the accused does not make an application for compounding as aforesaid, then if an application for compounding is made before the Magistrate at a subsequent stage, compounding can be allowed subject to the condition that the accused will be required to pay 10% of the cheque amount to be deposited as a condition for compounding with the Legal Services Authority, or such authority as the Court deems fit.

(c) Similarly, if the application for compounding is made before the Sessions Court or a High Court in revision or appeal, such compounding may be allowed on the condition that the accused pays 15% of the cheque amount by way of costs.

(d) Finally, if the application for compounding is made before the Supreme Court, the figure would increase to 20% of the cheque amount.

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 Authorit