Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:63294 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5559 of 2024 Revisionist :- Nawab Mohd Imran Khan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Asar Mukhtar,Ikram Ahmad,Mohd Shamim Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Salman Ahmad,Saqib Meezan Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard Mr. Mohd Shamim Khan, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and Mr. Saqib Meezan, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.2. 3. The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the judgment and order 29.11.2022 passed by the learned Judge Additional Court, Court No.2, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No.1257/2022 (Ravindra Taneja Vs. Nawab Mohd. Imran Khan) whereby, the revisionist had been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 N.I. Act and had been sentenced for simple imprisonment of one year along with fine of Rs.16,00,000/-. 4. The revisionist through this criminal revision has also challenged the judgment and order dated 7.10.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in Criminal Appeal No.05/2023 (Nawab Mohd. Imran Khan Vs. State of U.P. and another) whereby, the appeal filed by the revisionist had been dismissed and the order of conviction and sentence had been affirmed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist, at the very outset, has submitted that the revisionist and Opposite Party No.2 have entered into a compromise and have settled their dispute amicably, outside the Court. He further submits that pursuant to the compromise, the revisionist had already paid Rs.11,00,000/- to Opposite Party No.2. It is also submitted that Rs.3,00,000/- had already been deposited before the appellate court. 6. It has been contended that both the parties have agreed that this matter may be decided in terms of the compromise. 7. Mr. Saqib Meezan, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.2 has also submitted that both the parties have entered into a compromise and the matter stands settled. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that both the parties have settled their dispute amicably, outside the Court. It is well settled proposition of law through catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the offence punishable under Section 138 N.I. Act is a dispute of civil nature and it can be settled by the parties at any stage of litigation. 9. In view of the aforesaid reasons and categorical statements given by the learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.2, this criminal revision is allowed. The order 29.11.2022 passed by the learned Judge Additional Court, Court No.2, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No.1257/2022 (Ravindra Taneja Vs. Nawab Mohd. Imran Khan) and the order dated 7.10.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in Criminal Appeal No.05/2023 (Nawab Mohd. Imran Khan Vs. State of U.P. and another), are hereby set aside. 10. The trial court/appellate court is hereby directed to release the amount deposited by the revisionist in favour of Opposite Party No.2, after taking an indemnity bond. 11. Though this matter has been decided on the basis of the compromise but if at any subsequent stage, any party to the dispute comes to the conclusion that something remains to be decided by this Court on merit, he would be at liberty to file an application for recall of this order. Order Date :- 24.4.2025 Salim Digitally signed by :- SALIM PRAVEJ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad