The present revision petition has been filed by the

accused, challenging the judgment of conviction and order

on

sentence

passed

by

the

Trial

Court

in

C.C.No.28301/2016, holding the accused guilty for the

offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as

the “N.I. Act”), which was further confirmed by the

Sessions Judge's Court in the appeal filed by him.

Challenging the impugned judgments of conviction

and order on sentence passed by the trail court and

confirmed by the Sessions Judge’s Court, the petitioner

has filed the present revision petition.

3

2. Learned counsels from both side along with their

respective clients, as identified by their learned counsels,

are physically present in the Court.

3. Learned counsels from both side have filed a joint

application - I.A.No.1/2022, under Section 147 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter for brevity

referred to as "the N.I. Act"), along with affidavits filed by

both side reporting the settlement between them by way of

compromise and seeking acquittal of the petitioner herein

(accused) in C.C. No.28301/2016.

4. Learned counsels for the parties also make their

submission on the lines of the compromise petition.

5. The sum and substance of the terms of settlement

is that the petitioner (accused) has agreed to pay

`1,00,000/- as full and final settlement towards the subject

matter of the litigation. The respondent (complainant) is

agreeable to accept the sum of `1,00,000/- as full and final

settlement of his claim against the petitioner (accused) and

that he has no objection for acquitting the petitioner of the

4

alleged offence punishable under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act. Supporting affidavits by both

the petitioner and the respondent to that effect have been

filed. The fine amount of `5,000/- is also reported to have

been paid to the State by the petitioner. Thus, the parties

claim that they have settled the matter amicably and to

their fullest satisfaction.

6. The enquiry made with the parties who are

physically present convinces the Court that both the parties

out of their free consent and volition and in their best

interest have settled the matter amicably, which is further

corroborated by the submissions made by their learned

counsels. As such, I am of the view that, on the terms of

the said joint application, the parties be permitted to

compound the offence under Section 147 of the N.I. Act,

however, subject to the payment of the graded cost by the

petitioner/accused.

7.

Section 147 of the N.I. Act has made every

offence punishable under the N.I. Act as compoundable. As

such, there is no bar for the parties in the proceeding to

5

compound the offence. However, at the same time, the

guidelines laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Damodar S.

Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., reported in AIR 2010

SUPREME COURT 1907 regarding imposing graded cost

on litigant also to be borne in mind. According to the said

Judgment in Damodar S. Prabhu’s Case (supra), if the

application for compounding is made before the Sessions

Court

or

High

Court

in

revision

or

appeal,

such

compounding is permitted to be allowed on the common

condition that the accused pays 15% of the cheque amount

by way of graded cost.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that,

the graded cost payable by the petitioner by virtue of the

judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

Damodar S. Prabhu's case (supra), comes to a total

sum of `15,000/-.

9. Admittedly, in the instant case, the cheque amount is

for a sum of `1,00,000/-, as such, the graded cost would

be `15,000/-.

6

10. The petitioner through his counsel has paid a sum

of `1,00,000/- to the respondent through the Demand Draft

bearing No.514773 drawn on ICICI Bank, Rajajinagar,

Bengaluru dated 29.11.2022 in favour of the complainant.

11. The respondent/complainant acknowledges the

receipt of the same a