Sandeep Sharma, J.

(Oral)

Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 ofo the Code of Criminal Procedure, lays challenge to judgment dateCd 07.10.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge- II, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No.7-T/10 of 2022, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 1g7.03.2022 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theog, iShimla, H.P., in criminal complaint No.358/3 of 2018, whereby learned Court below, while holding petitioner-accused (hereinafter ‘accused’) guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘Act’) convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- to the respondent-complainant (hereinafter ‘complainant’).

Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act in the competent court of law, alleging therein that accused with a view to discharge his liability issued cheque amounting to Rs.2,60,000/- in favour of the complainant, however, the same was dishonoured with the .remarks “Account Closed”. Since accused failed to make the paymenPt good within the time stipulated in the legal notice, complainant w.as compelled to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act before the competent Court of law.

Learned trial Court on the baosis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgme nt and order dated 17.03.2022, held the accused guilty of having cormmitted offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and accorduingly, convicted and sentenced him as per the description given heroeinabove.

BeCing aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Court below, accused preferred an appealh in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Shimla, Dgistrict Shimla, H.P., which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated i07.10.2023, as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction recorded Hby the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, accused has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, seeking therein his acquittal after setting aside the judgments of conviction recorded by the learned Courts below.

Before case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merit, parties have entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them.

Today during proceedings of the case, learned counsel for the accused, on instructions, states before this Court that accused has paid the entire amount of compensation to the complainant awarded by learned trial Court. He states that on account of aforesaid amicable se.ttlement arrived inter se parties, this Court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, may proceed to compound the offence. and acquit the accused from the charges framed against him.

Mr. Ajay Singh Chauhan, Advocate, h as filed Power of Attorney on behalf of the complainant. He, on oinstructions of the complainant, states that entire amount of compens ation awarded by the learned Court below has been received by the rcomplainant, as such, he has no objection in compounding the offencue and acquitting of the accused from the charges framed against him uonder Section 138 of the Act.

Since parties have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them, as has been taken note hereinabove, coupled with the fact that complahinant has no objection in compounding the offence, this Court sees ngo impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the accused for icompounding the offence, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act as well as in terms of guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Cou rt in Damodar S. Prabhu V. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663, wherein it has been categorically hel