JUDGMENT : Sushil Kukreja, J. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., against judgment dated 03.06.2023, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. Camp at Barsar, in Criminal Appeal No. 06 of 2022, whereby the judgment of conviction, dated 17.05.2022, and order of sentence, dated 18.05.2022, passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P., in Complaint No. 13-I-2017, was affirmed. 2. The brief facts, giving rise to the present petition, can succinctly be summarized as under: 2(a). The Complainant-Bank, through its Branch Manager, Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P., filed a complaint against the petitioner-accused, wherein it was alleged that the petitioner-accused approached the Complainant-Bank for granting loan in the sum of Rs.1,80,000/- for purchasing a Nano car. On 03.11.2014 the complainant-Bank disbursed the aforesaid amount to the petitioner-accused. The petitioner-accused, in order to liquidate his financial liability towards the complainant-Bank, issued a cheque bearing No. 053317, dated 17.02.2017, drawn at Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank Branch at Barsar, Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P., amounting to Rs.1,63,541/- in favoaur of the complainant-Bank. However, the aforesaid cheque, on being presented for encashment by the complainant-Bank, was dishonoured with the remarks “insufficient funds”. Thereafter, the complainant-Bank issued a legal notice to the petitioner-accused on 04.03.2017, but despite receiving the same, he failed to make the payment of the aforesaid cheque amount. Resultantly, the complainant-Bank filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the Act”) before the learned Trial Court. 3. The learned Trial Court after conclusion of the trial convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and in default of payment of compensation to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. 4. Being dissatisfied, the accused/petitioner/convict preferred an appeal before the learned Lower Appellate Court, which was dismissed and judgment of conviction, dated 17.05.2022, and order of sentence, dated 18.05.2022, was upheld. Hence, accused/petitioner/convict-Raj Kumar preferred the instant petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer that his petition be allowed and the impugned judgments and order of sentence passed by the learned Courts below be set-aside and he be acquitted. 5 . Hence, accused/petitioner/convict-Raj Kumar preferred the instant petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer that his petition be allowed and the impugned judgments and order of sentence passed by the learned Courts below be set-aside and he be acquitted. 5 . D u r i n g t h e p e n d e n c y o f t h e i n s t a n t p e t i t i o n , a n a p p l i c a t i o n ( C r . M P N o . 1 3 6 o f 2 0 2 5 ) u n d e r S e c t i o n s 1 4 7 o f t h e A c t h a s b e e n f i l e d b y t h e p e t i t i o n e r - a c c u s e d , s e e k i ng p e r m i s s i o n o f t h i s C o u r t t o c o m p o u n d t h e o f f e n c e b y s e t t i n g - a s i d e t h e j u d g m e n t o f c o n v i c t i o n , d a t e d 1 7 . 0 5 . 2 0 2 2 , a n d o r d e r o f s e n t e n c e , d a t e d 1 8 . 0 5 . 2 0 2 2 , p a s s e d b y l e a r n e d J u d i c i a l M a g i s t r a t e 1 s t C l a s s , B a r s a r , D i s t r i c t H a m i r p u r , H . P . , i n C o m p l a i n t N o . P . , i n C o m p l a i n t N o . 1 3 - I - 2 0 1 7 , a n d a f f i r m e d v i d e j u d g m e n t d a t e d 0 3 . 0 6 . 2 0 2 3 , p a s s e d b y l e a r n e d A d d i t i o n a l S e s s i o n s J u d g e H a m i r p u r , H . P . , C a m p a t B a r s a r , i n C r i m i n a l A p p e a l N o . 0 6 o f 2 0 2 2 . 6 . O n 2 4 . 1 2 . 2 0 2 4 t h e s t a t e m e n t o f S h r i Y u v r aj S i n g h G u l e r i a , B r a n c h M a n a g e r , H . P . G r a m i n B a n k , B r a n c h a t B a r s a r , D i s t r i c t H a m i r p u r H . P . , w a s r e c o r d e d , a n d t o d a y, t h e s t a t e m e n t o f t h e p e t i t i o n e r - a c c u s e d , w h o i s p r e s e n t b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t , h a s a l s o b e e n r e c o r d e d . B o t h t h e s t a t e m e n t s h a v e b e e n s e p a r a t e l y p l a c e d o n t h e f i l e . 7 . I n h i s s t a t e m e n t , S h r i Y u v r a j S i n g h G u l e r i a , B r a n c h M a n a g e r , s t a t e d t h a t o n t h e b a s i s o f t h e c o m p l a i n t o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t - B a n k , a c o m p l a i n t u n d e r S e c t i o n 1 3 8 o f t h e A c t w a s r e g i s t e r e d a g a i n s t t h e p e t i t i o n e r - a c c u s e d . H e h a s f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t n o w t h e r e s p o n d e n t - B a n k h a s c o m p r o m i s e d t h e m a t t e r w i t h t h e p e t i t i o n e r - a c c u s e d i n f u l l a n d f i n a l s e t t l e m e n t o f t h e c h e q u e a m o u n t b y w a y o f o n e t i m e s e t t l e m e n t . T h e r e f o r e , t h e r e s p o n d e n t - B a n k h a s n o o b j e c t i o n i n c a s e t h e m a t t e r i s c o m p o u n d e d a n d j u d g m e n t o f c o n v i c t i o n , d a t e d 1 7 . 0 5 . 2 0 2 2 a n d o r d e r o f s e n t e n c e d a t e d 1 8 . 0 5 . 2 0 2 2 , p a s s e d b y l e a r n e d J u d i c i a l M a g i s t r a t e F i r s t C l a s s B a r s a r , D i s t r i c t H a m i r p u r , H . P . , a n d a f f i r m e d b y l e a r n e d A d d i t i o n a l S e s s i o n s J u d g e , H a m i r p u r C a m p a t B a r s a r , H . P . , v i d e j u d g m e n t d a t e d 0 3 . 0 6 . P . , v i d e j u d g m e n t d a t e d 0 3 . 0 6 . 2 0 2 3 i s q u a s h e d a n d s e t - a s i d e a n d t h e p e t i t i o n e r i s a c q u i t t e d o f t h e o f f e n c e p u n i s h a b l e u n d e r S e c t i o n 1 3 8 o f t h e A c t . 8 . T h e p e t i t i o n e r - a c c u s e d R a j K u m a r s t a t e d t h a t d u r i n g t h e p e n d e n c y o f t h e p r e s e n t p e t i t i o n h e h a s c o m p r o m i s e d t h e m a t t e r w i t h t h e r e s p o n d e n t - B a n k i n f u l l a n d f i n a l s e t t l e m e n t o f t h e c h e q u e a m o u n t b y w a y o f o n e t i m e s e t t l e m e n t . H e f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t t h e m a t t e r m a y b e c o m p o u n d e d a n d j u d g m e n t o f c o n v i c t i o n , d a t e d 1 7 . 0 5 . 0 5 . 2 0 2 2 , a n d o r d e r o f s e n t e n c e d a t e d 1 8 . 0 5 . 2 0 2 2 , p a s s e d b y l e a r n e d J u d i c i a l M a g i s t r a t e F i r s t C l a s s , B a r s a r , D i s t r i c t H a m i r p u r , H . P . , a n d a f f i r m e d b y l e a r n e d A d d i t i o n a l S e s s i o n s J u d g e H a m i r p u r , C a m p a t B a r s a r , H . P . , v i d e j u d g m e n t d a t e d 0 3 . 0 6 . 2 0 2 3 m a y b e q u a s h e d a n d s e t - a s i d e a n d h e m a y b e a c q u i t t e d o f t h e o f f e n c e u n d e r S e c t i o n 1 3 8 o f t h e A c t . 9 . 9 . I h a v e h e a r d t h e l e a r n e d c o u n s e l f o r t h e p e t i t i o n e r , l e a r n e d c o u n s e l f o r t h e r e s p o n d e n t a n d g o n e t h r o u g h t h e m a t e r i a l a v a i l a b l e o n r e c o r d. 1 0 . H a v i n g t a k e n n o t e o f t h e f a c t t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n e r - a c c u s e d a n d t h e r e s p o n d e n t ( c o m p l a i n a n t - B a n k ) h a v e s e t t l e d t h e m a t t e r a n d t h e r e s p o n d e n t - B a n k h a s n o o b j e c t i o n i n c o m p o u n d i n g t h e o f f e n c e , t h e r e f o r e , t h i s C o u r t s e e s n o i m p e d i m e n t i n a c c e p t i n g t h e p r a y e r m a d e o n b e h a l f o f t h e a c c u s e d - p e t i t i o n e r f o r c o m p o u n d i n g o f o f f e n c e w h i l e e x e r c i s i n g p o w e r u n d e r S e c t i o n 1 4 7 o f t h e A c t a s w e l l a s i n t e r m s o f g u i d e l i n e s i s s u e d b y t h e H o n ’ b l e A p e x C o u r t i n Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H., (2010) 5 SCC 663 , w h e r e i n t h e H o n ’ b l e A p e x C o u r t h a s h e l d a s u n d e r : - “10. At present, we are of course concerned with Section 147 of the Act, which reads as follows:- “147. Offences to be compoundable– Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable.” At this point, it would be apt to clarify that in view of the non-obstante clause, the compounding of offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is controlled by Section 147 and the scheme contemplated by Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter “CrPC”) will not be applicable in the strict sense since the latter is meant for the specified offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 11. So far as the CrPC is concerned, Section 320 deals with offences which are compoundable, either by the parties without the leave of the court or by the parties but only with the leave of the Court. Sub-section (1) of Section 320 enumerates the offences which 9 are compoundable without the leave of the Court, while subsection (2) of the said section specifies the offences which are compoundable with the leave of the Court. 12. Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is in the nature of an enabling provision which provides for the compounding of offences prescribed under the same Act, thereby serving as an exception to the general rule incorporated in sub-section (9) of Section 320 of the CrPC which states that ‘No offence shall be compounded except as provided by this Section’. A bare reading of this provision would lead us to the inference that offences punishable under laws other than the Indian Penal Code also cannot be compounded. However, since Section 147 was inserted by way of an amendment to a special law, the same will override the effect of Section 320(9) of the CrPC, especially keeping in mind that Section 147 carries a non obstante clause.” 1 1 . I n K . Subramanian vs . R . However, since Section 147 was inserted by way of an amendment to a special law, the same will override the effect of Section 320(9) of the CrPC, especially keeping in mind that Section 147 carries a non obstante clause.” 1 1 . I n K . Subramanian vs . R . Rajathi ; (20 1 0) 1 5 Supr e m e Cour t C a s e s 352 , i t h a s b e e n h e l d b y t h e H o n ’ b l e A p e x C o u r t t h a t i n v i e w o f t h e p r o v i s i o n s c o n t a i n e d i n S e c t i o n 1 4 7 o f t h e A c t r e a d w i t h S e c t i o n 3 2 0 o f C r . P . C ., c o m p r o m i s e a r r i v e d a t c a n b e a c c e p t e d e v e n a f t e r r e c o r d i n g o f t h e j u d g m e n t o f c o n v i c t i o n . T h e r e l e v a n t p o r t i o n o f t h e j u d g m e n t i s r e p r o d u c e d a s u n d e r : - “6. Thereafter a compromise was entered into and the petitioner claims that he has paid Rs. 4,52,289 to the respondent. In support of this claim, the petitioner has produced an affidavit sworn by him on 1.12.2008. The petitioner has also produced an affidavit sworn by P. Kaliappan, Power of attorney holder of R. Rajathi on 1.12.2008 mentioning that he has received a sum of Rs. 4,52,289 to the respondent. In support of this claim, the petitioner has produced an affidavit sworn by him on 1.12.2008. The petitioner has also produced an affidavit sworn by P. Kaliappan, Power of attorney holder of R. Rajathi on 1.12.2008 mentioning that he has received a sum of Rs. 4,52,289 due under the dishonoured cheques in full discharge of the value of cheques and he is not willing to prosecute the petitioner. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner states at the Bar that the petitioner was arrested on 30.7.2008 and has undergone the sentence imposed on him by the trial Court and confirmed by the Sessions Court, the High Court as well as by this Court. The two affidavits sought to be produced by the petitioner as additional documents would indicate that indeed a compromise has taken place between the petitioner and the respondent and the respondent has accepted the compromise offered by the petitioner pursuant to which he has received a sum of Rs.4,52,289. In the affidavit filed by the respondent a prayer is made to permit the petitioner to compound the offence and close the proceedings. 8. Having regard to the salutary provisions of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court is of the opinion that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the petitioner should be permitted to compound the offence committed by him under Section 138 of the Code.” 1 2 . S i n c e , i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , t h e p e t i t i o n e r - a c c u s e d a f t e r b e i n g c o n v i c t e d u n d e r S e c t i o n 1 3 8 o f t h e A c t , h a s c o m p r o m i s e d t h e m a t t e r w i t h t h e r e s p o n d e n t - B a n k , p r a y e r f o r c o m p o u n d i n g t h e o f f e n c e c a n b e a c c e p t e d i n t e r m s o f t h e a f o r e s a i d j u d g m e n t s p a s s e d b y t h e H o n ’ b l e A p e x C o u r t . 1 3 . T h e r e f o r e , i n v i e w o f t h e d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n m a d e h e r e i n a b o v e a s w e l l a s l a w l a i d d o w n b y t h e H o n ’ b l e A p e x C o u r t , t h e a p p l i c a t i o n i s a l l o w e d a n d m a t t e r i s o r d e r e d t o b e c o m p o u n d e d. 1 4 . A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e p r e s e n t m a t t e r i s o r d e r e d t o b e c o m p o u n d e d a n d t h e i m p u g n e d j u d g m e n t o f c o n v i c t i o n , d a t e d 1 7 . 0 5 . 2 0 2 2 , a n d o r d e r o f s e n t e n c e , d a t e d 1 8 . 0 5 . 2 0 2 2 , p a s s e d b y l e a r n e d J u d i c i a l M a g i s t r a t e F i r s t C l a s s , B a r s a r , D i s t r i c t H a m i r p u r , H . P . , i n C o m p l a i n t N o . 1 3 - I - 2 0 1 7 , w h i c h w a s a f f i r m e d i n a p p e a l b y l e a r n e d A d d i t i o n a l S e s s i o n s J u d g e , H a m i r p u r , H . P . C a m p a t B a r s a r , i n C r i m i n a l A p p e a l N o . P . C a m p a t B a r s a r , i n C r i m i n a l A p p e a l N o . 0 6 o f 2 0 2 2 , a r e q u a s h e d a n d s e t - a s i d e a n d t h e p e t i t i o n e r - a c c u s e d i s a c q u i t t e d o f t h e c h a r g e f r a m e d a g a i n s t h i m u n d e r S e c t i o n 1 3 8 o f t h e A c t . B a i l b o n d s , i f a n y , s t a n d d i s c h a r g e d . 1 5 . U n d i s p u t e d l y , t h e t o t a l a m o u n t o f t h e c h e q u e s i s R s . 1 , 6 3 , 5 4 1 / - , h o w e v e r , t h e l e a r n e d c o u n s e l f o r t h e p e t i t i o n e r s u b m i t t e d t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n e r i s a p o o r p e r s o n a n d t h e i m p o s i t i o n o f c o m p o u n d i n g f e e m a y b e r e d u c e d. 1 6 . I n c a s e K . Subr a m a ni a n v s . R . I n c a s e K . Subr a m a ni a n v s . R . R a j a thi ( s u p r a ), t h e H o n ’ b l e A p e x C o u r t h a d i s s u e d t h e g u i d e l i n e s w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e i m p o s i t i o n o f c o m p o u n d i n g f e e , w h i c h r e a d a s u n d e r :- “ T H E G U I D E L I N ES (i) In the circumstances, it is proposed as follows: (a) That directions can be given that the writ of summons be suitably modified making it clear to the accused that he could make an application for compounding of the offences at the first or second hearing of the case and that if such an application is made, compounding may be allowed by the Court without imposing any costs on the accused. (b) If the accused does not make an application for compounding as aforesaid, then if an application for compounding is made before the Magistrate at a subsequent stage, compounding can be allowed subject to the condition that the accused will be required to pay 10% of the cheque amount to be deposited as a condition for compounding with the Legal Services Authority, or such authority as the Curt deems fit. (c) Similarly, if the application for compounding is made before the Sessions Court or a High Court in revision or appeal, such compounding may be allowed on the condition that the accused pays 15% of the cheque amount by way of costs. (d) Finally, if the application for compounding is made before the Supreme Court, the figure would increase to 20% of the cheque amount. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 25. The graded scheme for imposing costs is a means to encourage compounding at an early stage of litigation. (d) Finally, if the application for compounding is made before the Supreme Court, the figure would increase to 20% of the cheque amount. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 25. The graded scheme for imposing costs is a means to encourage compounding at an early stage of litigation. In the status quo, valuable time of the court is spent on the trial of these cases and the parties are not liable to pay any court fee since the proceedings are governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, even though the impact of the offence is largely confined to the private parties. Even though the imposition of costs by the competent court is a matter of discretion, the scale of costs has been suggested in the interest of uniformity. The competent court can of course reduce the costs with regard to the specific facts and circumstances of a case, while recording reasons in writing for such variance. Bona fide litigants should of course contest the proceedings to their logical end.” 17. Therefore, taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra) and the financial condition of the petitioner, since the competent Courts can reduce the compounding fee with regard to the specific facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to deposit token compounding fee of Rs.5000/- (rupees five thousand), only with the H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Shimla, H.P., within four weeks from today. 1 8 . T h e p e t i t i o n s t a n d s d i s p o s e d o f a c c o r d i n g l y , s o a l s o t h e p e n d i n g m i s c e l l a n e o u s a p p l i c a t i o n ( s ) , i f a n y .