O R D E R

(Jabalpur, Dated : 04/10/2021)

Per: Sunita Yadav, J :

Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31.08.2021 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Aashta, District Sehore in Criminal Appeal No.227/2019, whereby the judgment dated 08.08.2019 passed in SCNIA No.94/2018 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Aashta, District Sehore has been affirmed, the present revision petition has been filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that; on 16.02.2018, the accused/revisionist purchased gold bangles costing Rs. 2,91,479/- on credit. The accused/revisionist failed to make the payment, the complainant demanded the amount and thus on 17.03.2018 the accused handed a cheque bearing cheque No.00011 of RBL Bank, Mandoi Road Branch Aashta. The said cheque was deposited by the complainant on his account on 22.03.2018 and the said cheque was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of revisionist. On 26.03.2018, a legal notice was sent through registered post but the same was returned with a note of refusal. Thus, a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed by the complainant. 3. The learned Trial court convicted the revisionist under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and convicted him to undergo SI for 1 year and imposed compensation of Rs.5,80,000/-. Against the judgment of conviction the revisionist preferred an appeal before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aashta, However, the same has been rejected by the impugned order dated 31.08.2021. Against the impugned order, this revision petition has been filed.

4. During the pendency of this revision, a joint application bearing I.A. No.17997/2021 under section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been filed for compounding the offence and permitting the compromise between the parties.

5. In the said application, it is stated that during the pendency of the present case, the petitioner has arrived at a compromise and out of court settlement, after which the respondent/complainant does not wish to prosecute the application further. The applicant has duly deposited the entire amount of compensation of Rs.5,80,000/- to the complainant and the complainant has duly accepted and issued a receipt on 29.09.2021. Consequently, it is prayed that the application be allowed and permit the parties to compromise and acquit the accused/revisionist in the interest of justice.

6. In support of the application under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the affidavit of Chandra Prakash Ranka, S/o Tarachandra Ji Raanka and the affidavit of Rajesh Kumar Jain have been filed.

7. Heard both the parties and perused the record.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that, in the light of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act conviction and sentence recorded by the courts below should be set aside. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the revisionist placed reliance in the case of K.M. Ibrahim vs. K.P. Mohammed and Another, reported in (2010) 1 SCC 798 in which it is held as under :

14. It is true that the application under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was made by the parties after the proceedings had been concluded before the appellate forum. However, Section 147 of the aforesaid Act does not bar the parties from compounding an offence under Section 138 even at the appellate stage of the proceedings. Accordingly, we find no reason to reject the application under Section 147 of the aforesaid Act even in a proceeding under Article 136 of the Constitution.

15. Since the parties have settled their disputes, in keeping with the spirit of Section 147 of the Act, we allow the parties to compound the offence, set aside the judgment of the courts below and acquit the appellant of the charges against him.

9. In the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court and keeping in view that in the present case, the parties have settled their disputes, this Court finds it appropriate to