JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. N. K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No.-2. 3. Heard Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State. 4. This petition has been filed against the judgment dated 31.01.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Cr. Appeal No. 159/2013 and in Cr. Appeal No. 161/2013 affirming the judgment of conviction dated 24.08.2013 and enhancing the order of sentence dated 24.08.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Bokaro in C.P. Case No. 467/2012 corresponding to T.R. No. 443/2013. The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of two months and to pay compensation of Rs. Two lakhs to the complainant, and in default of payment, simple imprisonment of one month. The learned lower appellate court enhanced the sentence to six months and to pay compensation of two lakhs to the complainant, in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment of two months. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the opposite party No.-2 jointly submit that they have filed a joint compromise petition being I.A. No. 4271/2020 containing the affidavit of both the parties. They jointly submit that the petitioner/accused is the nephew of the complainant/opposite party No.-2 and on intervention of the well-wishers and common relatives/friends, the matter has been settled amicably between the petitioner and the opposite party No.-2 outside the court and they have compromised without any money transaction. They also submit that the offence involved in the present case is compoundable in nature. 6. The learned counsel for the opposite party No.-2 submits that in such circumstances, the opposite party No.-2 has no objection if the conviction as well as sentence of the petitioner is set-aside. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State, on the other hand, submits that there is no dispute that the offence involved in the present case is compoundable in nature and as the petitioner and the opposite party No.-2 have settled the dispute outside the court and have filed a joint compromise petition, he does not have any objection if the conviction and sentence of the petitioner are set-aside. 8. 8. The petitioner was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro in C. P. Case No. 467/2012 corresponding to T.R. No. 443/2013 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in relation to bouncing of cheque vide judgment dated 24.08.2013. By the order of sentence dated 24.08.2013, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and further he was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the complainant under Section 357(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, in default to undergo one-month simple imprisonment. Both the complainant as well as the accused (present petitioner) were aggrieved by the judgment dated 24th August, 2013 and filed criminal appeal before the Sessions Judge, Bokaro. The appeal filed by the petitioner was numbered as Cri. Appeal No. 159/2013 and the appeal filed by the complainant (here Opp. Party No.-2) was numbered as Cri. Appeal No. 161/2013. The petitioner was aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence and the complainant had filed his appeal on the ground that the sentence imposed was inadequate. Both the appeals were heard together and disposed of by common judgment dated 31st January, 2014. The learned lower appellate court dismissed the Cri. Appeal No. 159/2013 filed by the present petitioner (accused) and the Cri. Appeal No. 161/2013 filed by the complainant was allowed. The learned lower appellate court was of the view that the sentence imposed was inadequate and not proportionate to the amount of cheque which was dishonoured and enhanced the sentence of the present petitioner to simple imprisonment of six months for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- was directed to be paid to the complainant under Section 357 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure and it was directed that in default of payment, he shall undergo simple imprisonment of two months and further that the period already undergone was directed to be set off from the substantive sentence. 9. The petitioner challenged the common judgment dated 31.01.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Cri. Appeal No. 159/2013 and in Cri. Appeal No. 161/2013, whereby, on the one hand, the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court was upheld and on the other hand, the sentence was enhanced. 10. 9. The petitioner challenged the common judgment dated 31.01.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Cri. Appeal No. 159/2013 and in Cri. Appeal No. 161/2013, whereby, on the one hand, the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court was upheld and on the other hand, the sentence was enhanced. 10. The present revision petition was admitted by this Court vide order dated 28.03.2014 and the petitioner was directed to be enlarged on bail, the lower court records were called for and notice was issued upon opposite party No.-2. 11. On 16.06.2020, when the matter was taken up, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner to adjourn the case and in the meantime, he shall seek instructions in the matter, so that joint compromise petition be filed as opposite party No.-2 is his uncle and ultimately, the joint compromise petition being I.A. No. 4271/2020 has been filed in the present case. 12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and also I.A. No. 4271/2020, this Court finds that the petitioner and the opposite party No.-2 have settled their dispute outside the court and they are close relations. The learned counsel for the opposite party No.-2 has submitted that he has no objection if the conviction and sentence of the petitioner is set-aside in view of the compromise entered into between the parties. 13. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the offence involved in this case is compoundable in nature and the parties have settled their dispute outside the court. Accordingly, the present revision petition is hereby disposed of in view of the compromise entered into between the parties in the light of the submission made by the parties. Consequently, the judgment dated 31.01.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Cr. Appeal No. 159/2013 and in Cr. Appeal No. 161/2013 as well as the judgment of conviction and sentence both dated 24.08.2013 passed in C.P. Case No. 467/2012 corresponding to T.R. No. 443/2013, are hereby set-aside. Accordingly, this revision petition as well as I.A. No. 4271/2020 are disposed of. 14. Bailors of the petitioner are discharged of their liability under the bail bond. 15. Let the lower court records be immediately sent back to the court concerned. 16. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through ‘e-mail/FAX’.