1. The challenge in the present criminal revision is to the order dated 05.03.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 24.04.2023 and order of sentence dated 25.04.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa, vide which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the Act’) and to pay compensation.

2. The facts relevant as narrated in the complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI Act are that the accused had issued post dated cheque dated 31.12.2014, amounting to Rs.10 lakh, in favour of the complainant. However, on presentation thereof, the same was dishonoured and returned with the remarks “Insufficient Funds”. Despite issuance of legal notice, the petitioner failed to make the payment within the stipulated period. The proceedings against him were initiated under Section 138 of the NI Act, pursuant to which, he appeared and was released on bail. On finding prima facie case under Section 138 of the NI Act, notice of accusation was served upon him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. After scrutinizing the evidence led by the parties, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the complainant has successfully proved his case against the petitioner-accused, and convicted and sentenced him, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 138 NI Act and to pay compensation of Rs.20 lakh to the complainant. Aggrieved convict-petitioner filed appeal, which was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, vide impugned judgment dated 05.03.2024.

4. Hence, the present revision petition.

5. The Coordinate Bench, on 28.05.2024, has suspended the sentence of the petitioner based on the compromise arrived at and directed the parties to appear before JMIC, Sirsa/Duty Magistrate, for getting their statements recorded qua the same.

6. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 23.07.2024 has been received from learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa. A perusal of the same reveals that statement of complainant-respondent No.2 has been recorded, who stated that the matter stands compromised and in pursuance thereof, he has received the amount; nothing is pending against the petitioner and has no objection in case the revision is accepted. The compromise effected between them is genuine, without any undue influence and coercion.

7. Learned counsel, at the very outset, prays for compounding the offence in view of the compromise having been arrived at between the parties and the fee with regard to the same be waived off, in view of the poor financial condition of the petitioner. He has with great difficulty, managed to collect the money and settled the dispute as he wanted to put an end to the same, about 3 years having gone by.

8. Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 admits the factum of compromise and states that as per the settlement, he has received the amount. Thus, he, on instructions, submits that there is no objection, if the prayer made by the petitioner is accepted.

9. It is apposite to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble The Supreme Court in B.V.Seshaiah vs. The State of Telangana and another 2023 Live Law (SC) 75, wherein it was held thus:

“10. In the case of M/S Meters and Instruments Private Limited & Anr. Vs Kanchan Mehta1,this court held that the nature of offence under section 138 of the N.I Act is primarily related to a civil wrong and has been specifically made a compoundable offence. The relevant paragraph of the judgment has been extracted herein:

“This Court has noted that the object of the statute was to facilitate smooth functioning of business transactions. The provision is necessary as in many transactions’ cheques were issued merely as a device to defraud the creditors. Dishonor of cheque causes incalculable loss, injury and inconvenience to