JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J. (Oral) - Present revision petition has been filed assailing judgment passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, District Sirmaur H.P. in Cr. Appeal No. 58-Cr.A/10 of 2014, dated 22.9.2017, affirming judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sirmaur at Nahan, dated 25.6.2014 in complaint No. 87-3 of 2011 convicting and sentencing the petitioner/accused to undergo imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- to the complainant. 2. Petitioner and respondent No.1 are present in Court, who are duly identified by their respective counsel. They have stated that matter has been compromised and as per compromise, Rs. 4,50,000/-, in total, is to be paid by petitioner or on his behalf to respondent No.1/complainant in two installments as full and final payment in present case. The first installment of Rs. 2 lacs shall be paid by the petitioner on or before 31.7.2018 and second installment of Rs. 2.50 lacs shall be paid by petitioner on or before 30.9.2018 and thereafter the amount deposited in the trial Court by petitioner, is to be refunded in favour of the petitioner/accused. In turn, respondent No.1/complainant has prayed for permission to withdraw the complaint for compounding the matter as compromised. Separate statements of both of them have been recorded. 3. Consequently, respondent/complainant is permitted to withdraw the complaint and matter is compounded and complaint arising out of dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act is permitted to be withdrawn and judgments of conviction and sentence passed by learned Courts below are quashed and set aside. Petitioner/accused is acquitted of the accusation framed against him. 4. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that considering the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. (2010)5 SCC 663 the Apex Court in Madhya Pradesh Legal Services Authority v. Prateek Jain and another (2014)10 SCC 690 has held that Court may reduce compounding fee for given facts and circumstances of a particular case and present case is a fit case of exemption of compounding fee. 5. In present case, the cheque amount was Rs. 3 lacs but the matter has been compounded against the payment of Rs. 4.5 lacs. 5. In present case, the cheque amount was Rs. 3 lacs but the matter has been compounded against the payment of Rs. 4.5 lacs. As the petitioner/accused is making the payment of 15% of the cheque amount, therefore, I feel that it is an appropriate case to impose the lesser compounding fee. Hence keeping in view the over all facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner is directed to deposit compounding fee Rs. 3000/- instead of 15% of cheque amount with the H.P. State Legal Services Authority,Shimla within two months from today. 6. After depositing compounding fee/cost, petitioner shall place copy of receipt of deposit on record of this petition. In case of default in depositing compounding fee/cost with H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Shimla within stipulated period and also on default in making payment of 4.5 lacs as agreed, the judgments of conviction and sentence shall automatically revive. 7. Petition stands disposed of, in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy of this judgment be also sent to H.P. State Lagal Services Authority, Shimla.