SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. The present criminal revision petition has been filed seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 2.12.2024, vide which, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad (for short ‘Sessions Judge’), dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner, as well as the judgment of conviction/order of sentence dated 27/30.4.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehabad (for short ‘JMIC’), whereby the petitioner was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 year and to pay compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- to the complainant.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of proceedings, the petitioner and the respondent/complainant have amicably settled the matter. Vide order dated 9.12.2024 passed by this Court, the matter was referred to DLSA, Fatehabad and the petitioner was directed to deposit an amount of ₹75,000/-before the trial Court within 3 weeks. Report of Mediator dated 24.1.2025 has been received stating that the matter has been compromised between the parties vide agreement/settlement dated 22.1.2025 (copy whereof appended at Flag ‘A’) before the DLSA, Fatehabad. Learned counsel for the petitioner, to prove his bonafide in pursuance of the aforesaid order, has also deposited Rs.75,000/- in the shape of an FDR before the trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that since the parties have amicably settled their dispute(s), the matter may be compounded and the petitioner be acquitted of the charge(s) framed against him.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has ratified the factum of settlement/compromise having been arrived at between the parties and has further vouched the genuineness of the compromise deed dated 22.1.2025 stated to be arrived between the parties. Accordingly, he has iterated that the respondent/complainant has no objection, in case, the offence is permitted to be compounded and the petitioner is ordered to be acquitted.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused the available record.

5. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H., AIR 2010(SC) 1907, relevant whereof reads thus:

“15. 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:-

THE GUIDELINES

(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 aut