1. This criminal revision is filed against the judgment and order dated 06.01.2024 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rishikesh in Criminal Appeal No.33/2021 "Atal Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand and another" as well as the judgment / order dated 25.02.2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate / Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rishikesh in Criminal Complaint No. 334 of 2015, whereby the revisionist has been convicted under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 and has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months along with a fine of Rs.12,05,000/- out of the fine amount Rs.12,00,000/- will have to be given as compensation to the respondent / complainant and Rs.5,000/- fine will have to be paid into the Government account with default stipulation of additional two months simple imprisonment.

2. As per the report of the Registry, there is a delay of 238 days in filing the present revision. An application for condonation of delay, supported by an affidavit, has been filed with the averments that the delay of 238 days occurred due to the reasons that during the pendency of the appeal filed by the revisionist, the respondent / complainant has expired on 20.03.2021 and subsequently when the legal representatives of the deceased were contacted the revisionist then they became aware of the factum of settlement between the complainant and revisionist, therefore, the delay in filing the present revision be condoned.

3. Learned counsel for respondent has no objection to the grant of application for condonation of delay.

4. Cause shown is sufficient. Delay condonation application is allowed. Delay in filing the criminal revision is condoned.

5. Along with the present revision a Compounding Application IA No.1/2025 duly supported by affidavits of the revisionist and Shivansh Chauhan and Smt. Sunita Chauhan, who are son and wife (legal heir) of respondent / complainant has been filed by the parties stating therein that the revisionist and legal heir of respondent / complainant have settled their dispute amicably outside the Court and now they have no grudge against each other. It is also stated that both the parties have entered into compromise with their own free will without any fear or pressure and that the respondent no.2 does not want to prosecute the revisionist any further.

6. Revisionist Mr. Atal Sharma and Mr. Shivansh Chauhan and Smt. Sunita Chauhan are present in the Court through Video Conferencing, duly identified by their counsel.

7. Mr. Shivansh Chauhan and Smt. Sunita Chauhan, legal heir of respondent / complainant would submit that the revisionist has paid the entire amount through cheque to him and now he does not wish to pursue the case any further.

8. In view of the fact that a compounding application was filed by the parties, the Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 02.06.2025, directed the parties to appear before the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Dehradun for recording of their statements and for verification of the compromise deed. The revisionist was also directed to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- before the concerned trial court.

9. Pursuant to the said order, the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Dehradun has submitted a report dated 12.06.2025, which clearly indicates that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and have duly verified the contents of the compromise deed. It is further mentioned in the report that the revisionist has deposited Rs.50,000/- with the concerned trial court, in compliance with the directions of this Court and in line with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., 2010 (5) SCC 663 : (AIR 2010 SC 1907). A receipt acknowledging the said deposit has also been annexed with the compliance report dated 12.06.2025.

10. Since both the parties have settled the dispute, which was purely private in nature, there is no use in keeping this revision pending and it would