JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. - Cr. Mp(M) No. 59 of 2018 Mr. M. S. Verma, learned counsel representing the respondent, on the instructions, having been imparted to him by his client, Sh. Rajesh Sharma, who is present in Court, stated that he has no objection in case the delay in maintaining the instant criminal revision petition is condoned. Consequently, in view of the averments contained in the application as well as statement having been made by learned counsel for the respondent, delay of 336 days in maintaining the present petition is condoned. Criminal Revision Petition be registered. Application stands disposed of. Cr. Revision No. 29 of 2018 Instant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the judgment dated 2. 11. 2016, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-(I) Shimla, District Shimla, H. P in Criminal Appeal No. 16-S/10 of 2016, affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 19. 02. 2016/ 3. 3. 2016, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Shimla, H. P. in RBT Case No. 2156-3 of 14/13, whereby learned trial Court, while holding petitioneraccused guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay compensation of Rs. 3,20,000/-to the complainant and in default of payment of compensation to further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. 2. Briefly stated facts, as emerged from the record are that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the complainant), filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Shimla, District Shimla, H. P. , alleging therein that accused had requested him to provide financial assistance of Rs. 3, 00,000/- and promised to return the same within a period of six months. Accused with a view to discharge his liability, issued a cheque bearing No. 452974, dated 16. 08. 2013, amounting to Rs. 3,00,000/- in favour of the complainant, drawn at State Bank of India, New Shimla, District Shimla, H. P. , however fact remains that on presentation, cheque issued by the accused was dishonoured on account of "insufficient funds" in the account of the accused. 08. 2013, amounting to Rs. 3,00,000/- in favour of the complainant, drawn at State Bank of India, New Shimla, District Shimla, H. P. , however fact remains that on presentation, cheque issued by the accused was dishonoured on account of "insufficient funds" in the account of the accused. Since, the accused failed to make the payment good despite opportunity having been afforded by the complainant by way of legal notice, complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act, in the competent Court of law. 3. Subsequently, learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, came to the conclusion that the present petitioner-accused is guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act, and accordingly convicted and sentenced him, as per the description already given supra. 4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court, present petitioner-accused filed an appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-(I),Shimla, which came to be registered as Cr. Appeal No. 16-S/10 of 2016, however fact remains that same was dismissed, as a result of which, the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, present petitioner-accused approached this Court by way of instant Criminal Revision Petition, praying for his acquittal after quashing and setting-aside the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below. 5. Today, during the proceedings of the case, learned counsel representing the parties moved an application under Section 147 of the Act, for compounding the offence/case in question, which is taken on record and Registry is directed to register the same. Learned counsel representing the parties, on instructions of their respective clients, who are present in Court, stated that the parties have amicably settled the matter and in view of the compromise arrived inter-se the parties, entire compensation amount stands paid to the complainant. 6. Though, perusal of the averments contained in the application, which has been signed by both the parties, suggest that parties have amicably settled the matter inter-se them, but this Court with a view to ascertain the genuineness and correctness of the averments contained in the application, also recorded the statements of the parties, who are present in court. 6. Though, perusal of the averments contained in the application, which has been signed by both the parties, suggest that parties have amicably settled the matter inter-se them, but this Court with a view to ascertain the genuineness and correctness of the averments contained in the application, also recorded the statements of the parties, who are present in court. Both the parties present in court stated on oath that they have amicably settled the matter without there being any external pressure and they have no objection in case the instant matter is ordered to be compounded in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu case supra. Their statements are taken on record. 7. Mr. I. S. Mehta, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on the instructions, having been received from the petitioner, who is present in Court, stated that an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- stands deposited with the learned trial Court, which can also be ordered to be released in favour of the complainant-, whereas remaining amount of Rs. 2,20,000/- has been paid to the respondent-complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that entire cheque amount in terms of the judgment passed by the learned trial court stands paid to the respondent-complainant and as such, present petitioneraccused be acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 138 of the Act. 8. Mr. M. S. Verma, learned counsel representing the respondent-complainant, on the instructions, having been received from the complainant, who is present in Court, fairly acknowledged that he has received a sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- from the petitioner-accused and in case the amount deposited in the learned trial court is released in his favour, he has no objection in compounding the case at hand in terms of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H , 2010 5 SCC 663 . 9. Consequently, in view of the averments contained in the application, which is duly supported by affidavits of respondent/complainant namely Sh. Rakesh Sharma and the petitioner namely Narinder Singh, this court sees no impediment in accepting the aforesaid prayer having been made by learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 9. Consequently, in view of the averments contained in the application, which is duly supported by affidavits of respondent/complainant namely Sh. Rakesh Sharma and the petitioner namely Narinder Singh, this court sees no impediment in accepting the aforesaid prayer having been made by learned counsel for the parties to the lis. Accordingly, the judgments of conviction and sentence passed by the learned courts below are quashed and set-aside and the accused is acquitted of the charge so framed against him under Section 138 of the Act. The bail bonds of the petitioner-accused-accused are discharged. 10. Learned trial Court below is directed to release an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- in favour of the complainant forthwith, on his making application. The petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any. Copy dasti