ORDER 1. This criminal revision under section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant against the judgment of conviction dated 23.11.2021 passed by 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Satna in Criminal Appeal No.36/2020 whereby the applicant has been convicted for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months and he has been directed to pay compensation under section 357(3) Cr.P.C. of Rs.3,88,108/- as also to pay cost of Rs.28,000/-. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, the applicant being in need of money for his domestic necessities approached the respondent for providing financial assistance to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/-. In lieu of financial assistance, he offered the respondent that he would be mortgaging his house for 5 months by executing the mortgage deed dt. 10.7.2013 and giving the cheque worth Rs.2,50,000/- of Dena Bank, Branch Satna. It was agreed that if the applicant would not be able to repay the amount of Rs.2,50,000/-, then complainant was free to lodge the cheque with its Banker. Till 31.12.2013 the applicant could not repay the amount, and accordingly, complainant asked the applicant for repayment of cheque amount. Upon which, applicant informned the complainant that he has sufficient balance in his bank account, therefore, asked him to lodge the cheque for encashment. On 7.1.2014, the complainant lodged the cheque in question which was dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds. The complainant sent a notice dated 4.2.2014 for repayment, but of no avail. Therefore, the complainant lodged a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which was registered as Criminal Case No.2510/2014. 3. The learned trial Court vide judgment dated 24.3.2014 found the applicant guilty for having committed the offence and convicted him under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months and directed to pay compensation amount of Rs.3,88,108/- with cost of Rs.28,000/- u/s 359 of Cr.P.C. 4. The applicant preferred criminal appeal against the judgment of trial Court passed in Criminal Appeal No.36/2020, wherein the learned lower appellate Court vide impugned judgment dated 23.11.2021 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and sentence passed by the trial Court. 5. Being aggrieved, the applicant preferred instant criminal revision wherein he stated that he has already deposited Rs.62,000/- before the Court below and Rs.20,000/- through on-line mode vide Annexure-A/4. 5. Being aggrieved, the applicant preferred instant criminal revision wherein he stated that he has already deposited Rs.62,000/- before the Court below and Rs.20,000/- through on-line mode vide Annexure-A/4. Along with aforesaid criminal revision the applicant also filed an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, wherein it is mentioned that applicant is absconding. Since applicant was absconding, the Registry of this Court has raised an objection with regard to maintainability of the revision. During pendency of revision the applicant also filed an interlocutory application for taking an affidavit sworn by the complainant as additional document on record. In this affidavit dated 20.12.2021 the complainant sworn that he has entered into amicable settlement with the applicant who repayed the entire cheque amount to him. The applicant also brought on record a copy of order dated 27.2.2021 passed in Cr.R.No.2365/2021 in support of his contention that in view of decision in the case of Vivek Rai and another v. High Court of Jharkhand through Registrar General and others, (2015) 12 SCC 86 and under exceptional circumstances the Court has powers to exempt the accused from surrendering before the Court. 6. This Court vide order dated 28.1.2022 allowed the interlocutory application and exempted the applicant to surrender before the Court and held the revision to be maintainable. The Court also took the affidavit so sworn by the complainant on record and taking note of amicable settlement between the parties directed them to appear before the Registrar Judicial-II on 15.2.2022 for verification of compromise. 7. On 15.2.2022, the parties appeared before the Registrar Judicial-II for verification of compromise. The Registrar Judicial-II submitted his report stating that parties have been idenfitied through their respective counsel. He also stated that parties have compromised amicably out of their own volition and without any force, compulsion, duress, undue influence, inducement or threat. However, there is no formal application for compromise on record. The Registrar Judicial-II also stated that in view of decision in the case of Damodardas S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H, (2010) 5 SCC 663 the applicant will be required to deposit 15% of the cheque amount towards cost as compounding fee, which shall be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority. 8. Thereafter, on 28.2.2022 the learned counsel for the applicant in view of report of Registrar Judicial-II dt. 8. Thereafter, on 28.2.2022 the learned counsel for the applicant in view of report of Registrar Judicial-II dt. 15.2.2022 made oral prayer before this Court that parties may be allowed to compound the offence in view of compromise and learned counsel for the applicant also undertook that he would deposit the compounding fee with the State Legal Services Authority. On 21.3.2022, vide Document No.3595/2022 learned counsel for the applicant filed receipt dt.21.3.2022 indicating that he has deposited Rs.37,500/- [15% of cheque amount (Rs.2,50,000/-)] before the State Legal Services Authority, Jabalpur. 9. In view of amicable compromise between the parties and deposit of compounding fee of 15% with the State Legal Services Authority, Jabalpur the impugned judgment dated 23.11.2021 is hereby set aside. The applicant is acquitted of the charge under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, the revision is allowed.