In proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the primary objective is the recovery of the amount; therefore, if the parties reach a compromise and the amount is paid, the accused may be acquitted to avoid unnecessary punishment.

Order

The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner(s) under Section 438 r/w Section 442 of B.N.S.S. against the judgment dated 18.01.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bundi (Raj.).

Heard on application bearing No.685/2025 filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 139 days' in filing of the Criminal Revision Petition.

For the reasons stated & grounds mentioned therein, the application for condonation of delay in filing of the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. The delay in filing of the Criminal Revision Petition is condoned.

By way of filing the present revision petition under Section 438 r/w Section 442 of B.N.S.S. the petitioner has challenged the judgment dt.10.07.2018 passed by Court of ld. Judicial Magistrare, No.2, Bundi (Raj.), in Criminal Case No.103/2016, 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.2,35,000/- to the complainant-respondent, as compensation, and in default thereof, to further undergo four months additional simple imprisonment.

The petitioner has also challenged the judgment dt.18.01.2025 passed by Court of ld. Session Judge, Bundi (Raj.), in Criminal Appeal No.269/2018, whereby ld. Judge, while dismissing the aforesaid appeal, has confirmed the judgment of conviction & the order of sentence 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.2,00,000/- to the complainant, which upon presentation was dishonoured & returned with the remarks "Insufficient Funds". 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, petitioner preferred an appeal before ld. appellate Court, which was also dismissed, while confirming the conviction & sentence awarded by the ld. Magistrate. Hence, this revision petition has been filed.

Today, the complainant, namely Rajkumar, are present-in-person before this Court. He has been identified by his respective Counsel & his signature has been obtained on the order-sheet of the Court.

Learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner, contends that during pendency of the present revision petition, both the parties have entered into a compromise dt.29.08.2025 outside of the Court and the dispute between them has been amicably settled. No dispute now remains pending. Therefore, the present petition may be allowed, the impugned orders be quashed & set aside and the petitioner be acquitted from the charges levelled against him.

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

Learned counsel appearing for the complainant/respondent does not wish to continue the matter & has no objection, if the impugned orders are quashed & set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charges levelled against him in terms of compromise.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the material made available on record.

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.

As per compromise dt.29.08.2025, complainant/respondent has entered into a settlement/agreement with the petitioner & received the complete disputed amount. He has no objection, if the impugned orders are quashed & set aside and the petitioner is acquitted in terms of compromise.

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