JUDGMENT 1. - An application (IA No.1262/2012) has been submitted before this Court, inter alia, stating that the petitioner was convicted by the Special Judge (N.I. Act Case), Sriganganagar vide order dated 14.10.2010 for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced with two years' simple imprisonment and to pay Rs. 1,75,000/- towards compensation. Against this order, an appeal was filed by the petitioner, which was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.2,Sriganganagar vide order dated 3rd April 2012. 2. Against both these orders, the petitioner filed present Revision Petition. Now a compromise has been arrived at between the parties and so, it is prayed that in the light of the compromise, this Revision Petition may be disposed of. 3. An affiadvit of respondent No.2- Ashok Kumar s/o Bheem Chand has been placed on record, inter alia, deposing on oath that he has received all due amount from petitioner Anil Narula and no transaction is now outstanding. It is further expressed therein that now he does not to pursue any criminal proceeding against the petitioner. An application under section 320 (5) Criminal Procedure Code has also been filed before this Court on behalf of respondent No.2 for grant of permission to compromise the case. 4. As per directions by this Court, the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) has verified the compromise and so, the compromise entered between the accused-petitioner and the complainant-respondent has also been placed on record before this Court. 5. The accused-petitioner Anil Narula is presently confined in jail and his counsel is present on his behalf. According to the compromise, the complainant agrees that he has been paid all the amount by the accused-petitioner and therefore, he does not wish to pursue any criminal proceedings against the accused-petitioner. 6. Recently, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that considering large number of cases under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court should encourage compounding of the offence, for the spirit of section 138 of the Act is not so much as to punish the accused but is more so to ensure that the amount owed by the accused is realised by the complainant. 7. In the present case, since the amount has already been realised by the complainant, making an application for compounding the offence has been allowed by this Court and the compromise has been duly verified. 7. In the present case, since the amount has already been realised by the complainant, making an application for compounding the offence has been allowed by this Court and the compromise has been duly verified. Thus, the parties have entered into an agreement since the amount has already been paid by the petitioner. 8. As per decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. 2010 (1) NIJ 321 (SC) = 2010 (2) RLW 1599 (SC) , following guidelines are to be followed for compounding of offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:The Guidelines "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." 9. In the aforesaid decision, Hon'ble Apex Court also observed that the graded scheme for imposing costs is a means to encourage compounding at an early stage of litigation. In the status quo, valuable time of the Court is spent on the trial of these cases and the parties are not liable to pay any court-fee since the proceedings are governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, even though the impact of the offence is largely confined to the private parties. In the status quo, valuable time of the Court is spent on the trial of these cases and the parties are not liable to pay any court-fee since the proceedings are governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, even though the impact of the offence is largely confined to the private parties. Even though the imposition of costs by the competent court is a matter of discretion, the scale of costs has been suggested in the interest of uniformity. The competent court can, of course, reduce the costs with regard to the specific facts and circumstances of a case, while recording reasons in writing for such variance. 10. The complainant has submitted an application that the compromise is arrived at between the parties and the petitioner has paid to him full amount of cheque in question and the account has already been cleared and in these circumstances, it is prayed that this Revision Petition may be disposed of on the basis of compromise without any cost. 11. .In the facts and circumstances of this case and in the interest of justice, impugned judgment dated 03rd April 2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, Sriganganagar in Cr. Appeal No.26/2012 (206/2010)- Anil Narula v. State of Raj . & another is hereby set aside in view of compromise arrived at between the parties, with the condition that the petitioner shall deposit Rs. 5000/- with the District Legal Services Authority, Sriganganagar within 02 months from the date of this order. The petitioner- Anil Narula s/o Kishori Lal, r/o 255, Mukherji Nagar, near Durga Mandir, Sriganganagar is acquitted from offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 12. With aforesaid observations and directions, the Revision Petition stands disposed of. In view of acquittal from conviction, the application for suspension of sentence also accordingly stands disposed of.Petition disposed of. *******