JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. Heard Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 2. I.A. No.11639 of 2025 has been filed for condonation of delay of 19 days in filing the criminal revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in preparation of filing the criminal revision, such delay has occurred and in view of that, the delay may kindly be condoned. 4. Learned counsel for the State and opposite party no.2 have got no serious objection. 5. For the reasons assigned in the said I.A., the delay of 19 days in filing the criminal revision petition is, hereby, condoned. 6. Accordingly, I.A. No.11639 of 2025 is allowed and disposed of. 7. This criminal revision petition has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.12.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with C/1 Case No.1997 of 2019, T.R. No.464 of 2022, whereby, the learned Magistrate has been pleased to convict the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and sentence him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and fine of Rs.4,40,000/-, out of which, Rs.4,35,000/- has been directed to be paid as compensation to the complainant and Rs.5,000/- as a cost. The further prayer is made to setting-aside the judgment dated 09.08.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.07 of 2023 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, whereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment and order of the learned trial court has been affirmed. 8. Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint case was filed under Section 138 of N.I. Act alleging therein that sum of Rs.3,80,000/- was paid by the complainant to the petitioner and in return the cheque was issued by the petitioner, which was dishonoured due to insufficient balance. He submits that in this background, the case proceeded. He submits that in this background, the case proceeded. The learned trial court has convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for one year for the said offence along with fine of Rs.4,40,000/-, out of which, Rs.4,35,000/- has been directed to be paid as a compensation and rest Rs.5,000/- to be paid as a cost. He further submits that the petitioner challenged the said judgment and order of the trial court in Criminal Appeal No.07 of 2023, however, the said appeal has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur vide judgment dated 09.08.2023 and affirmed the judgment and order of the learned trial court. He submits that in the aforesaid background, the present criminal revision petition has been filed. He submits that the matter is arising out of Negotiable Instrument Act and now a good sense has prevailed between the parties and for that, joint compromise petition being I.A. No.11413 of 2025 has been filed. He submits that it has been settled between the parties that the awarded compensation of Rs.4,40,000/- will be returned to the complainant by the petitioner in 11 installments of Rs.40,000/- each and in that view of the matter, 11 cheques have been issued by the petitioner. He submits that the matter is arising out of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and that is compoundable under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instrument Act . 9. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the State submits that the matter is arising out of Negotiable Instrument Act and in light of the joint compromise petition, it appears that both the parties have compromised the matter. 10. Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 accepts the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and he submits that the compromise has taken place between the parties and 11 cheques have already been issued by the petitioner, which has been deposited by the complainant in the bank account of the complainant-opposite party no.2. He further submits that joint compromise petition has been separately affidavited by both the sides. He submits that in light of the compromise, the matter can be disposed of. 11. He further submits that joint compromise petition has been separately affidavited by both the sides. He submits that in light of the compromise, the matter can be disposed of. 11. In view of the above, it transpires that the matter is arising out of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and in light of the judgment and order of the learned trial court as well as appellate court, the amount of compensation and cost has already been returned back to opposite party no.2 by the petitioner, which has been accepted by the learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 12. In light of the above and considering Section 147 of the Negotiable Instrument Act , which is compoundable section under the said Act, the Court allows to compound the case. In view of that, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.12.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with C/1 Case No.1997 of 2019, T.R. No.464 of 2022 and the judgment dated 09.08.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.07 of 2023 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur are, hereby, set-aside. 13. Accordingly, this criminal revision petition is allowed and disposed of. 14. Consequently, I.A. No.11413 of 2025 is also disposed of.