Order : FARJAND ALI, J. 1. The petitioner was tried for committing an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act Act and vide judgment dated 16.06.2023 passed by the learned Special Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No.9, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Criminal Regular Case No.43/2019. He was sentenced to suffer six months simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.8,93,848/-. The appeal preferred by him bearing Appeal No.37/2023 has also been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Jodhpur Metropolitan vide judgment dated 26.11.2024. 2. The legal and factual aspects of the matter have thoroughly been considered. Now, the instant Misc. Petition has been preferred seeking setting aside of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court affirmed by the Court of appeal on the ground of compromise. A copy of compromise and the affidavit of complainant Daulat Jain S/o Champa Lal Jain duly notorised is filed and annexed with the petition. 3. Since the matter relates to an offence under Section 138 of NI Act and it’s a dispute inter-se between the parties which does not effect the societal interest, maintaining peace and tranquility and the offence is compoundable one, therefore, the instant Misc. Petition can be allowed in light of the compromise. When an objection was raised by the learned Public Prosecutor that the parties had an occasion to resolve the dispute at the first occasion when the cheque was dishonoured and then when the notices were served and when cognizance was taken by the Court but the legal remedy was not availed of rather, their battle had consumed the energy of judicial officers and employees working in there so also the police officers to serve notices upon the parties and, therefore, the parties cannot be allowed to compound the offence at this belated stage when the conviction has been affirmed by the Court of appeal. 4. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that of course, the judicial machinery was set in motion because of the act of the petitioner and he did not avail the several opportunities provided to him to resolve the matter amicably and which certainly cause inconvenience to the other party as well as to the judicial machinery. He is ready and wiling to pay the cost of proceedings for the inconvenience caused. 5. He is ready and wiling to pay the cost of proceedings for the inconvenience caused. 5. Upon thorough consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court observes that the matter pertains to a bailable and compoundable offense. The parties have reached a compromise, and there exists no legal impediment to quashing the proceedings at this stage. In the landmark judgment of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , Hon’ble the Supreme Court elucidated that: “57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences Under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil favour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil favour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” This pronouncement underscores that the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not constrained by Section 320, thereby permitting quashing of proceedings even post-conviction if it serves the ends of justice and there is no legal hindrance/impediment in doing the same. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H. reported in AIR 2010 SC 1907 set aside the order of conviction as the parties have reached to a settlement. The Court noted the legislative intent behind Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act to ensure the reliability of cheques and highlighted the burden of such cases on the criminal justice system. 7. In light of the amicable settlement between the parties and guided by the aforementioned legal principles, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the proceedings, which includes setting aside the conviction. 7. In light of the amicable settlement between the parties and guided by the aforementioned legal principles, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the proceedings, which includes setting aside the conviction. However, this is subject to the condition that the petitioner will pay the cost of proceedings in a way of charity in an old age home. 8. The petitioner is directed to deposit the sum of Rs. 70,000/- in ‘Astha Old Age Home’ run by Navjeevan Sansthan, Jodhpur. The account details are as under:- (i) Account Holder Name : NAVJEEWAN SANSTHAN (ii) Bank Name : STATE BANK OF INDIA (iii) Branch : JALORI GATE BRANCH, JODHPUR (iv) Saving Account No. : 61031820706 (v) IFSC Code No. : SBIN0031201 9. After depositing the said amount, the petitioner is directed to submit the receipt of this deposit before the trial court. Upon receipt/acknowledgment of deposition of amount in Navjeewan Sansthan, Jodhpur and upon the trial court’s satisfaction of the compliance, the judgment of conviction dated 16.06.2023 passed by the learned Special Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No.9, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Criminal Regular Case No.43/2019 shall be treated as quashed and set aside and the outcome of which would be acquittal of the accused from the charges and the appellate court’s order will be considered non-est. It is made clear that if the said amount is not deposited as stated above, the order dated 16.06.2023 shall be rejuvenated automatically. 10. With these observations and directions, the instant Misc. Petition as well as stay petition stand disposed of.