JUDGMENT : SANDEEP SHARMA, J. Cr.MP(M) No. 195 of 2017 1. Sequel to order dated 17.2.2017, Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of respondent/complainant, who is also present in person. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Advocate, stated that he has no objection in case delay in maintaining the present petition is condoned and petitioner is heard and decided on merits. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in application as well as no objection given by learned counsel representing the respondent, delay in maintaining the present revision petition is condoned and same is ordered to be registered. Application stands disposed of. Cr. Revision No. 51 of 2017 2. Instant criminal revision petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against judgment dated 28.2.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kullu in criminal appeal No. 01 of 2014, affirming the judgment of conviction dated 9.12.2013, recorded by learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Kullu in criminal case No. 130-1 of 2011, whereby present petitioner/accused has been held guilty of having committed offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 3. Briefly stated the facts, as emerged from record, are that respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) filed complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act before learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Kullu stating therein that petitioner owed a sum of rupees two lacs to complainant/respondent and in order to discharge his liability, he issued a cheque bearing No. 562039, dated 24.12.2010 of his account in favour of complainant, but on presentation of cheque to the concerned bank, same was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. Accordingly, complainant called upon the petitioner by way of legal notice to make payment good within a period of fifteen days, but since no steps were taken by him, complainant was compelled to initiate the proceedings against present petitioner/accused under Section 138 of the Act in competent Court of law. 4. Learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, on the basis of material made available on record, found petitioner guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lac fifty thousand only). 5. 4. Learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, on the basis of material made available on record, found petitioner guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lac fifty thousand only). 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid judgment of conviction, recorded by learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, present petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 374(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure before learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, which came to be registered as Cr. Appeal No. 01 of 2014. However, facts remain that aforesaid appeal was dismissed, as a result of which judgment of conviction recorded by learned trial Court came to be upheld. 6. In the aforesaid background, present petitioner approached the Court by instant proceeding seeking his acquittal after setting aside judgment of conviction recorded by learned Courts below. 7. Today during the proceedings of case, counsel representing the parties stated that parties have compromised the matter and as such, present matter may be ordered to be compounded in terms of judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. (2015) 5 SCC 663. 8. Mr. T.S. Chauhan, learned counsel representing the petitioner, invited the attention of this Court to the application, having been filed by petitioner under Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure for compounding the matter, wherein compromise, having been entered into both the parties, is also enclosed. Perusal of compromise, placed on record by petitioner, suggests that parties have compromised the matter and complainant has received full and final amount qua cheque issued by the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned counsel representing the complainant, who is also present in Court, stated, on instructions received from complainant, that complainant has compromised the matter and has no objection in case present matter is ordered to be compounded in terms of judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court cited as above. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Advocate, has also made available an affidavit of complainant namely Rajiv Sood, which is taken on record, wherein he has deposed that he has entered into the agreement with petitioner/accused and has received full and final amount of cheque in question and now he has no claim against the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Advocate, has also made available an affidavit of complainant namely Rajiv Sood, which is taken on record, wherein he has deposed that he has entered into the agreement with petitioner/accused and has received full and final amount of cheque in question and now he has no claim against the petitioner. To ascertain the correctness and genuineness of documents referred herein above, the Court also examined complainant on oath, who affirmed that he has compromised the matter and has received full and final payment. 9. Consequently, in view of the discussion made herein above, matter is ordered to be compounded and judgments passed by learned Courts below are quashed and set aside. The petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 138 of the Act. Since the petitioner is lodged in Jail at Nahan, the Registry is directed to prepare and send the release warrants of the petitioner, to the quarter concerned, forthwith. Revision petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.