JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. 1. This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 10.12.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge(I), Kangra at Dharamahsla, circuit Court at Nurpur in Criminal Appeal No. 18-N/X/2019 upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed on 10.5.2019 by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. 2, Nurpur in Criminal Case No. 82-III/2015. Petitioner has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay compensation of Rupees two lacs to the respondent/complainant. 2. Learned Counsel for the parties have jointly submitted that the parties have voluntarily effected a compromise on 27.10.2020 in terms of which the respondent/complainant is at liberty to withdraw an amount of Rs.80,000/- deposited by the petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge(I), Kangra at Dharamashala and further the respondent has acknowledged receipt of remaining cheque amount from the petitioner on 27.10.2020. A copy of the compromise has been placed on record. 3. Learned Counsel jointly submit that in view of the compromise effected between the parties on 27.10.2020, the dispute in reference does not survive now between the parties. Respondent/complainant is satisfied with the amount deposited by the petitioner and is not interested now in pursuing the matter any further. Learned Counsel for the respondent has prayed for compounding of the offence. 4. Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides for compounding of the offence under the Act even at the appellate stage. Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhangu Trading Co. and another v. Surjit Singh (dead) through L.Rs. (2019) 3 Crimes (SC) 76 and N.P. Murugesan v. C. Krishnamurthy, (2018) 9 Scale 43 has held that when the entire compensation has been paid to the respondent/complainant and the parties have settled their dispute, then the whole litigation should be given a quietus, subject to appropriate terms. In titled Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663 and in titled Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority v. Prateek Jain and another, (2014) 10 SCC 690 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that while compounding the offence, the amount of compounding cost can be reduced in view of facts and circumstances of a case by recording reasons. 5. 5. Since the respondent-complainant is not interested in pursuing the matter any further and since the parties have already effected compromise, therefore, taking holistic view of the matter, the respondent-complainant is permitted to compound the offence committed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned judgments of conviction and sentence are quashed and set aside. This however shall be subject to deposit of costs. Prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for reducing the cost. Since the petitioner has already made the payment to the respondent and the latter has also expressed his satisfaction in the written compromise dated 27.10.2020 of petitioner's having discharged his entire liability under the cheque in question, therefore, in the facts of the case petitioner is directed to pay cost @ 5% on the cheque amount. The cost shall be deposited with District Legal Services Authority Kangra at Dharamshala within a period of eight weeks from today. The receipt of deposit be placed on record of this petition. 6. The respondent/complainant shall be at liberty to withdraw the amount of compensation deposited by the petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (I), Kangra at Dharamshala by moving a formal application in this regard giving details of his bank account. 7. With the above observations, the revision petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. 8. Order accordingly.