The primary purpose of Section 138 of the N.I. Act is the recovery of dues; thus, an amicable settlement between parties justifies acquittal, although the court may impose costs if judicial time was wasted by delaying the compromise.

Order

By way of filing the present revision petition under Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner has challenged the judgment dt.07.06.2018 passed by Court of ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahpura, Jaipur, in Criminal Regular Case No.784/2013 whereby ld. Magistrate has convicted the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act & sentenced him to undergo one year simple imprisonment and ordered to pay a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- to the complainant- respondent, as compensation, and in default thereof, to further undergo two-months additional simple imprisonment.

The petitioner has also challenged the judgment dt.13.01.2026 passed by Court of ld. Additional District & Sessions Judge, No.2, Shahpura District Jaipur, in Criminal Appeal No.27/2018, whereby ld. Judge dismissed the aforesaid appeal & confirmed the judgment of conviction & the order of sentence dt.07.06.2018 passed by the ld. Magistrate.

Facts of the present case, in brief, are that the complainant- respondent filed a complaint u/s.138 of N.I. Act against the petitioner before ld. trial Court alleging therein that the petitioner issued a cheque amounting to Rs.10,50,000/- to the complainant, which on presentation was dishonoured & returned with the remarks of "Account Closed". The trial Court convicted the petitioner for alleged offence & sentenced him to undergo maximum period of one year simple imprisonment alongwith a fine. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before ld. Appellate Court, which was also dismissed while confirming the judgment of conviction & sentence.

Today, both the parties are present-in-person before this Court. They have duly been identified by their respective Counsel & their signatures have also been obtained on the order-sheet of the Court.

Learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner submits that the petitioner was on bail during the trial as well as the appeal. During pendency of present revision petition, both the parties have entered into a compromise dt.04.04.2026 & the dispute between them has been amicably settled. No dispute now remains pending. Counsel further submits that since a compromise has been arrived at between the parties by way of mutual consent, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings against the petitioner for the alleged offence. Therefore, the present petition may be allowed, the impugned judgments be quashed & set aside and the petitioner be acquitted from the charges levelled against him.

Learned Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the submissions made herein-above.

Learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that he has no objection, if the impugned judgments are quashed & set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charges levelled against him in terms of compromise.

Considering the submissions made at bar & the overall facts & circumstances of the case and the fact that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties, this Court finds that it would not be appropriate to continue upholding the judgments of the learned Courts below and maintain the conviction of the petitioner in the alleged offence, since both the parties have already amicably settled the dispute, continuing the case would serve no meaningful purpose.

The dispute is inter-se in between the parties and does not affect the society at large. The complainant has now entered into a compromise with the present petitioner.

The aim & purpose of Section 138 of N.I. Act is not to punish the accused but to ensure that the due amount is duly returned to the complainant. Considering the nature of litigation under Section 138 of N.I. Act , in case the amount is paid and is duly accepted by the complainant, the matter should be compounded and the accused should be acquitted.

Since the parties have not entered into