ORDER

Both the parties are present in person and have been duly identified by their respective counsel.

Heard on IA No. 19063/2023, an application under Section 482 of CrPC.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.

Also heard on IA No. 8533/2019, an application for withdrawal of money from the Trial Court.

For the reasons, stated in the application, the same is allowed.

The applicant is permitted to do so in accordance with law.

Present revision has been filed against judgment dated 30.11.2015 passed b y Third Additional Sessions Judge, District Indore in Criminal Appeal No.106/2014 whereby learned Sessions Court affirmed the order dated 05.01.2014, passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, District-Indore in Criminal case No.34713/2006 wherein the applicant has been convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced him to undergo 6 month rigorous imprisonment and compensation of Rs.4,97,500/-. 2.Parties are present in person and have been duly identified by their respective counsel.

4. Learned counsel for both the parties submitted that the dispute has been settled amicably and the respondent has submitted that she has no objection if petitioner is acquitted from the charge under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

5. Since the parties are entering into compromise at the stage of revision, therefore, law laid down by the apex Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H. reported in (2010) 5 SCC 663 will be applicable in this case. Paragraph No.21 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:- “21. 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 Criminal Revision No.3198/2021 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.”

6. Further in paragraphs 24, 25 and 26 of the aforesaid judgment, learned Apex Court has held as under:

24. 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 proce