JUDGMENT Paramjeet Singh, J. (Oral) Present criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioner against judgment dated 23.10.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction dated 10.12.2011 and order of sentence dated 12.12.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurgaon, vide which the petitioner has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay compensation the cheque amount i.e. Rs. 2,41,971/- to the petitioner. Brief facts of the case are that criminal complaint was filed by the respondent - complainant against the petitioner under Sections 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 420 IPC with the averments that the petitioner took a loan from the complainant company for the purpose of a vehicle and a written loan agreement bearing No. A-82535 was executed between the accused and the complainant. In order to discharge of the above referred debt and liability towards the complainant company, the accused issued a cheque bearing No. 193711 dated 29.06.2006 for a sum of Rs.2,41,971/- in favour of the complainant company. Said cheque on presentation for encashment was returned back with the remarks “Insufficient Funds”. Thereafter, the complainant served legal notice dated 30.09.2004 upon the accused, but the accused failed to comply with the notice. After recording preliminary evidence, the accused petitioner was summoned under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Finding a prima facie case against the petitioner, notice of accusation was served upon the accused-petitioner to which the accused-petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Mr. Paras Gupta, authorized persons of the complainant company, in order to prove the case, examined himself as CW1 and closed his evidence. Thereafter, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All incriminating circumstances were put to him. He denied the same and pleaded innocence. The learned Trial Court, after appreciation of the evidence, convicted vide judgment dated 10.12.2011 and sentenced the petitioner as aforesaid vide order dated 12.12.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, vide judgment dated 23.10.2012. Hence, this criminal petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the parties state that the dispute has been settled amicably. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, vide judgment dated 23.10.2012. Hence, this criminal petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the parties state that the dispute has been settled amicably. Learned counsel for the respondent, on instructions from Mr. Nihil Malhotra, authorised representative of the respondent-complainant, who is present in Court today, states that the petitioner has made a full and final payment of Rs. 2 lacs in cash on 20.11.2012 against the loan agreement. Nothing is due against the loan agreement. Learned counsel further states that the complainant would have no objection, if the present revision is allowed and the petitioner is acquitted in the complaint in question on the basis of compromise. Learned counsel for the respondent has also placed on record an affidavit dated 11.12.2012 of Nikhil Malhotra, Territory Legal Manager of complainant-company to the above effect, which is taken on record. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Damodar S. Prabhu versus Sayed Bablal H. reported in 2010(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 851, has held as under:- “15. With regard to the progression of litigation in cheque bouncing cases, the learned Attorney General has urged this Court to frame guidelines for a graded scheme of imposing costs on parties who unduly delay compounding of the offence. It was submitted that the requirement of deposit of the costs will act as a deterrent for delayed composition, since at present, free and easy compounding of offences at any stage, however belated, gives an incentive to the drawer of the cheque to delay settling the cases for years. An application for compounding made after several years not only results in the system being burdened but the complainant is also deprived of effective justice. In view of this submission, we direct that the following guidelines be followed:- THE GUIDELINES (i) In the circumstances, it is proposed as follows: (a) That directions can be given that the Writ of Summons be suitably modified making it clear to the accused that he could make an application for compounding of the offences at the first or second hearing of the case and that if such an application is made, compounding may be allowed by the court without imposing any costs on the accused. (b) If the accused does not make an application for compounding as aforesaid, then if an application for compounding is made before the Magistrate at a subsequent stage, compounding can be allowed subject to the condition that the accused will be required to pay 10% of the cheque amount to be deposited as a condition for compounding with the Legal Services Authority, or such authority as the Court deems fit. (c) Similarly, if the application for compounding is made before the Sessions Court or a High Court in revision or appeal, such compounding may be allowed on the condition that the accused pays 15% of the cheque amount by way of costs. (d) Finally, if the application for compounding is made before the Supreme Court, the figure would increase to 20% of the cheque amount. Let it also be clarified that any costs imposed in accordance with these guidelines should be deposited with the Legal Services Authority operating at the level of the Court before which compounding takes place. For instance, in case of compounding during the pendency of proceedings before a Magistrate's Court or a Court of Sessions, such costs should be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority. Likewise, costs imposed in connection with composition before the High Court should be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority and those imposed in connection with composition before the Supreme Court should be deposited with the National Legal Services Authority.” Consequently, in view of affidavit dated 11.12.2012 and keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra), present revision petition is allowed. Impugned judgments and order of sentence are set aside and criminal complaint filed by the complainant is quashed, subject to deposit of 15% of the settled amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- i.e. Rs.30,000/- with the State Legal Services Authority, Haryana within one month from today and if not paid then same shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue and the petitioner will have to serve the remaining part of the sentence. The petitioner, who is stated to be in custody be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.