JUDGMENT : Ranjan Sharma, J. Petitioner-accused [Sudarshan Singh] has come up before this Court in Criminal Revision No.397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure, against the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh [hereinafter referred to as Trial Court] in CIS Case No.142/2018, titled as HP State Co-operative Bank Ltd. Versus Sh. Sudarshan Singh, decided on 05.12.2022, whereby, the petitioner herein was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and shall also be liable to pay a fine of Rs.6,50,000/- for the commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Rajgarh, District Sirmaur [H.P.], the petitioner approached the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, Himachal Pradesh [hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Court], in Criminal Appeal No.03-Cr.A./10 of 2023, which was decided by the aforesaid Court on 01.09.2023, affirming the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, as referred to above. The conviction and sentence was also affirmed. 3. By way of the present Criminal Revision Petition, the petitioner-accused herein has assailed the judgments passed by the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court, referred to above. 4. Alongwith the Criminal Revision Petition, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay in filing the present revision petition has also been filed i.e. Cr.MP(M) No.73 of 2024. Keeping in view the contents of this application and in view of the nature of the orders intended to be passed, coupled with the fact that this application is not opposed, the delay in filing the accompanying Revision Petition is condoned and the application stands disposed of accordingly. 5. As a sequel to, delay in Cr.MP(M) No.73 of 2024 having been condoned, the accompanying Criminal Revision Petition [CR.RST NO.11236/23, dated 29. 12.2023, be registered as per Rules. 6. The present matter was listed before this court on 04.03.2024, whereby, the Revisionist herein, had shown his intention to finally settle the fine amount with the Complainant-Bank. In view of the willingness of the petitioner to settle the matter, the same was adjourned for 7. 03.2024 [today]. 7. 12.2023, be registered as per Rules. 6. The present matter was listed before this court on 04.03.2024, whereby, the Revisionist herein, had shown his intention to finally settle the fine amount with the Complainant-Bank. In view of the willingness of the petitioner to settle the matter, the same was adjourned for 7. 03.2024 [today]. 7. During the course of hearing, the petitioner-accused herein, who is present in Court, has filed an application under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for compounding the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the Court [it be also registered], stating therein that he has discharged his liability of Rs.6,50,000/ - , by way of cash deposited on 06.03.2024, receipt [Annexure P-1] annexed with this application. The factum of having discharged the liability, is not disputed by the Respondent-Complainant-Bank, as per instructions of Mr. Navsanchit Kashiv, Branch Manager, H.P. State Co-operative Bank Limited, Branch Shargaon, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Sirmaur [H.P.], who is also present in Court. However, separate statements of the petitioner as well as the official of the Respondent-Bank, have been recorded today, shall form part of the present order. 8. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances, coupled with the averments made in Para-5 of the application under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for compounding the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, filed in the Court today, it has been stated on affidavit that the petitioner is an agriculturist and on account of COVID and floods during the last year, the petitioner could not discharge his liability. It is further averred in the application that the petitioner is financially poor and in order to discharge his liability, the amount has been remitted by the borrowed the same from the friends/ relatives. 9. This Court is of the conscious of the fact that as per mandate of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Baba Lal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663 and Para- 21, though the Hon’ble Apex Court has mandated the guidelines, whereby, the compounding fee is to be levied, in the cases where the liability is not honoured in time. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority vs. Prateek Jain and another (2014) 10 SCC 690 , as also mandated that the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu, can be deviated from either by imposing minimal costs of by waiving the costs, by recording reasons keeping in view the special facts and circumstances of the case. In the above backdrop and mandate of law in Damodar S. Prabhu and Prateek Jain , coupled with the fact that the petitioner in the application filed today, has shown his indigency and, therefore, this Court waives of the compounding fee altogether. 10. The waiving of the compounding fee, as has been ordered in view of the indigency and the circumstances preceding the passing of the order today in view of COVID conditions and the resultant flood last year and the meagre income of the petitioner, who has no other means of livelihood, except the small agriculture holdings, which only cope up for survival of the petitioner, including his family. Even the bonafides so disclosed after passing of the order on 04.03.2024, which is also reasonable ground for waiving the compounding fee, as the entire amount of Rs.6,50,000/- has been remitted to the complainant-Bank-Respondent in one go. 11. The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behavior. It is the soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C or power under other statutes, including section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is “finest hour of justice”. 12. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney vs. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others, 1980 (1) SCC 63 , while summing up the essence of compromise, it observed as under:- “….The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion." 13. This Court on the basis of the material placed on record has satisfied itself that the petitioner-accused and the respondent-complainant have settled the dispute and the respondent-complainant has no grudges against the petitioner-accused, who has liquidated/discharged/remitted his liability in favour of the complainant. This Court on the basis of the material placed on record has satisfied itself that the petitioner-accused and the respondent-complainant have settled the dispute and the respondent-complainant has no grudges against the petitioner-accused, who has liquidated/discharged/remitted his liability in favour of the complainant. In these circumstances, allowing the prosecution to continue in such case would only result in disturbance in their relations inter se, and ends of justice in such circumstances would demand that the parties be allowed to compromise. This Court further satisfies that such compromise is not a camouflage to escape punishment and the consent given by the complainant for compromise is voluntarily. Lastly and more importantly, the Court satisfies after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, that quashing the proceedings would promote justice and continuance of the proceedings would otherwise cause injustice. Ordered accordingly. 14. In view of the above discussion, the orders passed by the learned Trial Court [i.e. learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Rajgarh, District Sirmaur Himachal Pradesh] and learned Appellate Court [i.e. learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, Himachal Pradesh, as detailed in Paras 1 and 2 (supra) are declared inoperative and the same are accordingly quashed in view of the above facts and circumstances, for all intents and purposes. 15. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that though the total liability was at Rs.6,50,000/-, which has now been remitted by the petitioner in lump-sum on 06.03.2024 [Annexure P-1], annexed with the application under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, filed today], but it is clarified that since the petitioner has remitted an additional amount of Rs.1,30,000/- on 27.03.2023 before the learned Trial Court i.e. Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh; therefore, this Court directs the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, to remit this amount in the bank account of the petitioner herein within a week from the date the petitioner submits/furnishes his bank account details, to the learned Trial Court as referred to above. 16. In view of the above, the present Criminal Revision Petition alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), shall disposed of accordingly.