JUDGMENT SANJAY KAROL, J. - 1. ACCUSED-petitioner Santosh Rana has been convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and fine of Rs.1,50,000/- by the Courts below for having committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The amount of fine has been ordered to be given as compensation to the respondent-complainant. 2. ASSAILING the judgment dated 23.3.2012, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, District Mandi, in Complaint No.124-II/2007, titled as M/s Satluj Motoers versus Santosh Rana, as affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, vide judgment dated 19.10.2012, passed in Criminal Appeal No.14 of 2012, tilted as Santosh Rana versus M/s Satluj Motors, the accused-petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition under the provisions of Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Parties have amicably resolved their dispute, in view of the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu versus Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663 . 3. ENTIRE amount, in terms of the judgment dated 23.3.2012, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, District Mandi, in Complaint No.124-II/2007, titled as M/s Satluj Motoers versus Santosh Rana, stands deposited by the present petitioner before the trial Court. 15% of the amount, in terms of the decision rendered in Damodar S. Prabhu (supra), shall be deposited with the appropriate authority within a period of two weeks, as is so undertaken by the petitioner, who is present in the Court today. It shall be open for the respondent to withdraw the amount deposited before the trial Court. 4. AS such, judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court as affirmed by the lower Appellate Court is set aside and the offence stands compounded. The petitioner is discharged. With the aforesaid observations, present Revision Petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application, if any.