ORDER : 1. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the State of Rajasthan and also learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2-complainant. 2. Leave granted. 3. The respondent no. 2 filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the appellant with respect to dishonour of cheque for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only). The Trial Court convicted the appellant and imposed a compensation of Rs. 1,20,0000/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Thousand only) as against the cheque amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only). 4. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 21st September, 2011. Subsequent to the dismissal of the appeal, parties entered into a compromise on 5th December, 2011 and a written Agreement was also executed duly signed by the parties. 5. The appellant preferred a revision before the High Court against the confirmation of the conviction. The High Court dismissed the criminal revision vide order dated 21.08.2023 on the ground that the complainant was not present to verify and attest the compromise arrived at between the parties and also for the reason that appellant was not personally present although his lawyer was present. 6. Appellant later on filed a petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) (akin to Section 482 Cr.P.C.) for quashing of the proceedings on the basis of the compromise. The High Court has dismissed the petition under Section 528 BNSS vide order dated 22.10.2024. The High Court had framed a question to the effect that whether an order passed by the High Court in criminal revision could be annulled by exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the basis of subsequent developments by way of a compromise entered into by the parties. The High Court had held that the Court would not have jurisdiction to do so and accordingly dismissed the petition under Section 528 BNSS. 7. Before this Court, the appellant has challenged both the orders dismissing the criminal revision as also the petition under Section 528 BNSS. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2-complainant submitted that he has already filed an affidavit and has no objection to the criminal proceedings being quashed as the settlement has been arrived at in 2011 itself. 9. 7. Before this Court, the appellant has challenged both the orders dismissing the criminal revision as also the petition under Section 528 BNSS. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2-complainant submitted that he has already filed an affidavit and has no objection to the criminal proceedings being quashed as the settlement has been arrived at in 2011 itself. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the State of Rajasthan has also no objection to the same. 10. In view of the above, we are of the view that the criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed and the High Court fell into error in dismissing the criminal revision on the ground that the complainant did not appear. The appellant had already filed the compromise before the High Court in the revision and the complainant having been satisfied with his claim, may have chosen not to appear before the High Court as he had already received the amount under the settlement. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the appeal against the order dated 21st August, 2023 passed in the Criminal Revision and after setting aside the same, the entire proceedings in view of the settlement arrived at are quashed. 12. In so far as the challenge to the order passed under Section 528 BNSS is concerned, we dispose of the same, leaving the question of law open to be dealt with in another appropriate case. 13. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.