Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:115382 Court No. - 86 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 1834 of 2024 Revisionist :- Pankaj Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Sanjay Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,R.C. Maurya Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J. Order on Crl. Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 01 of 2024 1. This criminal revision is reported to be beyond time by 9 days. 2. The revisionist has filed this application for condonation of delay in filing this criminal revision. 3. Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State does not have any objection if the application for condonation of delay is allowed. 4. I have perused the contents of the affidavit filed along with the application for condonation of delay in filing this criminal revision. 5. I find that the delay in filing this criminal revision has been sufficiently explained. 6. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is hereby allowed and the delay in filing the criminal revision is condoned. 7. The office is directed to allot a regular number to this criminal revision. Order on Memo of Revision. 8. Heard Sri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist, Sri R.C. Maurya, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2 and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State. 9. The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the judgment and order dated 09.09.2022 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Additional Court, Varanasi in Complaint No. 2187 of 2018 (Vikas Yadav Vs. Pankaj Yadav) under Section 138 N.I. Act, whereby, the revisionist had been convicted and had been sentenced for rigorous imprisonment of six months along with fine of Rs.3,55,000/-. The revisionist has also challenged the judgment and order dated 08.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Varanasi in Criminal Appeal No. 185 of 2022 (Pankaj Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and another) whereby, the appeal filed by the revisionist had been dismissed and the conviction order dated 09.09.2022 had been upheld. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist, at the very outset, submits that after filing of this criminal revision, the revisionist and Opposite Party No.2 have entered into a compromise and have settled their disputes amicably and the revisionist had paid Rs. 3,55,000/- to Opposite Party No. 2. 11. Learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2 admits that the parties have entered into a compromise and now there is no dispute amongst them. He also does not have any objection if this criminal revision is allowed and the orders impugned in this criminal revision are set aside. 12. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 13. Since Opposite Party No. 2, who is present before this Court and counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, categorically admit, that the parties have entered into a compromise and have settled their dispute, which is subject matter of this criminal revision, this criminal revision is liable to be allowed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had also laid down the law that matter related to an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be settled through compromise amongst the parties at any stage of proceedings. 14. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this criminal revision is allowed. The order dated 09.09.2022 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Additional Court, Varanasi in Complaint No. 2187 of 2018 (Vikas Yadav Vs. Pankaj Yadav) and the order dated 08.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Varanasi in Criminal Appeal No. 185 of 2022 (Pankaj Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and another), are hereby set aside. 15. The amount, if any, deposited before the trial court, if not paid to Opposite Party No.2 till date, shall be released in his favour forthwith. Order Date :- 16.7.2025/A. Mandhani Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK MANDHANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad