JUDGMENT : The present Criminal Revision No. 27 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 27.07.2019 passed by the Sri Ravi Ranjan, learned Additional Sessions Judge IV, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 132 of 2018 and Criminal Appeal No. 139 of 2018 whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge IV, Dhanbad has dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioner and one Md. Nizamuddin by affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.06.2018 passed by Ms. Ritwika Singh, the Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Dhanbad in Complaint Case No. 1564 of 2012/T.R. No. 1843 of 2018 whereby the petitioner and one Md. Nizamuddin have been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced to undergoS.I. for a period of one (1) year each and to pay Rs. 13,50,000/ (Rupees Thirteen Lakh Fifty Thousand) each as compensation by the petitioner and one Md. Nizamuddin. 2. I. A. No. 471 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of both the sides by way of a joint compromise application. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgments and order passed by the learned Court below are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in law. It is further submitted that the case has been compromised between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 and now opposite party no. 2 does not want to proceed further in this case. It is submitted that the case has been settled between the petitioner and opposite party no. 2 and the petitioner has paid the entire amount of Rs. 13,49,500/ to the opposite party no. 2 as per the agreement dated 05.11.2024 and hence, the impugned judgments and order may be set aside and the petitioner may be acquitted. 5. On the other hand, no objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the State. 6. Mr. Kumar Nilesh, Advocate under the instruction of Mr. Kalayan Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O. P. No. 2 has submitted that the case has been compromised between the parties and also admitted the factum of compromise between the petitioner and the O. P. No. 2. It is further submitted that opposite party no. 6. Mr. Kumar Nilesh, Advocate under the instruction of Mr. Kalayan Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O. P. No. 2 has submitted that the case has been compromised between the parties and also admitted the factum of compromise between the petitioner and the O. P. No. 2. It is further submitted that opposite party no. 2 has no grievance against the petitioner and opposite party no. 2 has receivedRs. 13,49,500/- from the petitioner and hence, he does not want to proceed further in this case. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the I. A. No. 471 of 2025. 8. It appears that in light of compromise petitioner filed by both the sides, vide order dated 17.01.2025, this Court has exempted the petitioner from surrendering before the learned Court below. 9. Para 5 to 12 of the I. A. No. 471 of 2025, filed on behalf of the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2, read as follows: “Para-5 : That it is submitted that matter has been settled between the parties and the opposite party no.2 has also entered into an agreement for compromise on 05.11.2024, which was duly signed by opposite party no.2 and son of the petitioner. Para-6 :-That it is further submitted that the opposite party no.2 has received the dues amount to his satisfaction. Para-7:- That it is further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 17.10.2024. Para-8:- That it is further submitted that the opposite party no.2 has received the entire amount and is duly agreed to settle the dispute between them and is not willing to contest the case. Para-9:- That it is submitted that the present dispute has already been settled in between the petitioner and opposite party no. 2 outside the court due to intervention of the well wishers and friends. Para-10:- That it is further submitted that during the pendency of the case, good sense prevailed between the parties and they have amicably settled their dispute. Para-11:- That under the aforesaid circumstances, it is expedient in the interest of justice that the present Interlocutory Application may be allowed, accepting the compromise arrived at in between the parties, as the disputes in between the parties has been settled once for all. Para-11:- That under the aforesaid circumstances, it is expedient in the interest of justice that the present Interlocutory Application may be allowed, accepting the compromise arrived at in between the parties, as the disputes in between the parties has been settled once for all. Para-12:- That it is further submitted that it has been categorically held by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Hon'ble Court that in such type of cases parties should be allowed to enter into compromise at continuation of such cases will simply leads to futile exercise and it is not at all desirous to continue with the case particularly when informant himself is not interest to continue with the case. 10. It appears that the case has been compromised between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 and the opposite partyno. 2 has received Rs. 13,49,500/ from the petitioner. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the both the sides and in view of the averments made in para 5 to 12 of I. A. No. 471 of 2025, the prayer for compounding the offence is allowed and parties are permitted to compromise the case. 12. Accordingly, the judgment dated 27.07.2019 passed bythe Sri Ravi Ranjan, learned Additional Sessions Judge IV, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 132 of 2018 and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.06.2018 passed by Ms. Ritwika Singh, the Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Dhanbad in Complaint Case No. 1564 of 2012/T.R. No. 1843 of 2018 are set aside in the interest of justice and in light of the joint compromisepetition and the petitioner Subodh Singh is acquitted for the offence under Section 138 of the N. I. Act and the petitioner Subodh Singh is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds. 13. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision No. 27 of 2025 is allowed. 14. Thus, I. A. No. 471 of 2025 is also allowed and stands disposed of.