Hrishikesh Roy, J.:- Heard Mr. D. Das, learned Senior Coun­sel assisted by Mr. R. Singha, appearing for the petitioner. The State is represented by Mr, B. B. Gogoi, the Addl.PP and Mr. U.J. Saikia, learned Counsel appears for the com­plainant (respondent No. 1). 2. The conviction of the petitioner ordered through the judgment dated 12.5.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nagaon under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter referred to as the N.I. Act), which was upheld subsequently by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC, Nagaon in Criminal Appeal No. 22 (N)/2010, is under challenge in the present proceeding. On such conviction the petitioner is sentenced to pay compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the complainant and in default, to suffer S.I. for one year. 3. As no interim order was granted while issuing notice on this Revision petition, the petitioner was taken into custody as she had failed to deposit the compensation and she is now lodged in the Nagaon Jail. 4. Today at the very outset the parties sub­mit that an out of Court settlement has been reached between the complainant and the petitioner and the terms of the compromise is reflected through ihe affidavit filed by the com­plainant on 19.9.2011 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 567/2011. 5. Mr. Das submits that offence of this kind are compoundable under Section 147 of the N.I. Act and taking advantage of the said compoundable provision, a deed of agree­ment was signed by the petitioner and the complainant on 13.9.2011, for a mutual set­tlement of the dispute amongst them. Citing the decision of the Apex Court in Anil Kumar Haritwal Vs. Alha Gupta reported in AIR 2004 SC 3978 Mr. Das submits that the Apex Court has held that conviction arising out of dishonouring of cheques is compoundable when the due amount is paid to the complain­ant. 6. Mr. U.J. Saikia, learned Counsel ap­pearing for the complainant submits that Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh) is already received from the accused petitioner and ac­cording to the agreement the balance amount of Rs.50,000/- is due to be realised as per the post dated cheque, given by the petitioner. He submits that the matter is resolved out of Court and the case can now be disposed of. in terms of the Deed of Agreement dated 13.9.2011 appended as Annexure-1 to the affidavit filed by the complainant on 19.9.2011. 7. He submits that the matter is resolved out of Court and the case can now be disposed of. in terms of the Deed of Agreement dated 13.9.2011 appended as Annexure-1 to the affidavit filed by the complainant on 19.9.2011. 7. After hearing the parties and taking note of the aforesaid development and the deci­sion of the Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Haritwal (supra), I feel that compounding of the offence should be allowed in the present case. Consequently the Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned conviction order (s) are set aside and quashed, by permitting corn-pounding of the conviction under Section 147 of the N.I. Act. 8. As the offence is compounded, the pe­titioner is ordered to be released from the jail custody forthwith. 9. The case is disposed of accordingly.