JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Moudgil, J.

The present revision petition has been preferred against judgment dated 12.11.2024 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Fatehabad whereby, the appeal preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 10.02.2023 and order of sentence dated 13.02.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehabad, vide which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1881'), is dismissed and the complainant was awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.2,40,000/-; in default of payment thereof within a period of two months then shall be recovered as per provision of Section 421 Cr.P.C.

2. On perusal file, it is evident that a compromise has been effected between the parties, as the entire cheque amount stands paid to the complainant and on that account counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not want to challenge his conviction on merits.

3. The petitioner(s) stands convicted under Sections 138 of Act of 1881 vide judgment of conviction dated 10.02.2023 and vide order of sentence dated 13.02.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehabad, he was sentenced to undergo SI for a period of one year for commission of offence under Section 138 of Act of 1881 and the appeal preferred against the afore-said judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been dismissed vide judgment dated 12.11.2024 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Fatehabad.

4. The petitioner has annexed with the present petition an affidavit dated 31.01.2025. The relevant extract of the affidavit reads as under:-

'3 That now the accused Ashok Kumar has reached a settlement with the complainant bank in respect of the above case and now the accused Ashok Kumar has paid the above amount of Rs.2,40,000/- to the complainant and the complainant bank has no objection, if the appeal of the accused Ashok Kumar accepted on the ground of compromise.

4. That the complainant does not want to take any action in this Court.'

5. The accused and complainant have amicably settled the matter between them in terms of the settlement dated 31.01.2025. A perusal of the documents reveal that the settlement has not been secured through coercion, threats, social boycotts, bribes, or other dubious means. The complainant has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings. There is no objection from the respondent in case present revision petition is allowed.

6. Vide order dated 18.03.2025, parties were directed to appear before the trial Court for recording of their statements with regard to the compromise. In compliance of the order dated 18.03.2025, a report dated 21.03.2025 has been received from Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-cum-JMFC, Fatehabad wherein, it has been categorically stated that both the parties have made their statements as per their own free will and without any pressure.

7. In the given facts, the occurrence does not affect public peace or tranquillity, moral turpitude or harm the social and moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning public policy. The rejection of compromise may also lead to ill will. The pendency of trial affects career and happiness. There is nothing on the record to prima facie consider the accused as an unscrupulous, incorrigible, and professional offender. The purpose of criminal jurisprudence is reformatory in nature and to work to bring peace to family, and society. The exercise of the inherent power for quashing the conviction, sentence and all previous proceedings are justified to secure the ends of justice.

8. At the very initial stage of hearing, a question was raised on behalf of the petitioner as to whether an offence under Section 138 of the Act of 1881, could be compounded under Section 147 of the said Act read with Section 320 Cr.P.C.

9. Since a specific power had been given to the parties to a proceeding under the Negotiable Instruments Act under Secti