JUDGMENT : I.A. No.16106 of 2025 has been filed for condonation of delay of 164 days occurred in preferring the instant criminal revision petition. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 29.7.2025 and he was trying to compromise the matter and in view of that such delay has occurred and finally the compromised is reached. 3. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondent State as well as the O.P.No.2 have got no serious objection if the said delay is condoned. 4. For the reasons assigned and in view of the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the said delay of 164 days occurred in preferring the instant revision petition is, hereby, condoned and the instant I.A. meant for condonation of delay is allowed and disposed. 5. I.A. No.16107 of 2025 has been filed for suspension of sentence and to enlarge the petitioner on bail during pendency of this revision petition. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this criminal revision petition has been preferred for setting aside the judgment dated 19.03.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.85 of 2024 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner -XV, Ranchi by which the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment dated 27.2.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No.3845 of 2022 has been confirmed and by the said judgment the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo SI for a period of six months and fine of Rs.One lac which has to be paid as compensation to the complainant and in case of non-payment of fine, further direction is there to further undergo SI for three months and the period already undergone by the convict in custody, if any, will be set-off. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter is arising under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and that is compoundable in light of section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He further submits that a good sense has prevailed between the parties and both of them have compromised the matter and a compromise petition in the form of I.A. No.17369 of 2025 has been filed. He further submits that a good sense has prevailed between the parties and both of them have compromised the matter and a compromise petition in the form of I.A. No.17369 of 2025 has been filed. On instruction, he next submits that, he has come forward with a Bank Draft of Rs.One lac in terms of the settlement as well as the direction of the learned court and is ready to hand over the same to the learned counsel appearing for the O.P.No.2. He then submits in view of that the petitioner may kindly be exonerated and put at liberty. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent State submits that it appears that the compromise is there and the matter is arising out of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 9. Learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 accepts the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. He further submits that the I.A. is filed for compromise which has been affidavited separately by both the sides and he further submits that the total consideration amount has been agreed to be paid to the complainant. He further submits that he is ready to accept the said Bank Draft in favour of the O.P.No.2 and the same will be handed over by him to the complainant/ O.P.No.2. He next submits that he has instruction that the matter may kindly be disposed of. 10. In view of above and considering that the matter is arising out of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which is compoundable under section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and both the parties have compromised the matter and in view of that, the prayer made in the I.A meant for compromise is allowed. 11. A reference may be made to the case of “New Win Export and Another Vs. A. Subramaniam” reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 1741 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 6 and 7 has held, as under:- “6. At this juncture, we would also like to reiterate a few words regarding the principles of compounding of offences in the context of NI Act. It is to be remembered that dishonour of cheques is a regulatory offence which was made an offence only in view of public interest so that the reliability of these instruments can be ensured. At this juncture, we would also like to reiterate a few words regarding the principles of compounding of offences in the context of NI Act. It is to be remembered that dishonour of cheques is a regulatory offence which was made an offence only in view of public interest so that the reliability of these instruments can be ensured. A large number of cases involving dishonour of cheques are pending before courts which is a serious concern for our judicial system. Keeping in mind that the ‘compensatory aspect’ of remedy shall have priority over the ‘punitive aspect’, courts should encourage compounding of offences under the NI Act if parties are willing to do so. (See : Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 6631 , Gimpex Private Limited v. Manoj Goel (2022) 11 SCC 7052 , Meters And Instruments Private Limited v. Kanchan Mehta (2018) 1 SCC 5603) 7. In Raj Reddy Kallem v. The State of Haryana [2024] 5 SCR 203, this Court followed the same principles and quashed a conviction under the NI Act, by invoking its powers under Article 142, even though the complainant therein declined to give consent for compounding, observing that the accused has sufficiently compensated the complainant.” 12. In view of above and considering that the compromise has been reached between the parties and a joint compromise petition has already been allowed and disposed of and further the case is allowed to be compounded between the parties, and consequently, the petitioner is hereby acquitted by setting aside the judgment dated 19.03.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.85 of 2024 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XV, Ranchi by which the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment dated 27.2.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No.3845 of 2022 has been confirmed. 13. The petitioner is, hereby, put at liberty forthwith and he is discharged of his liability. 14. As such, the I.A. meant for suspension of sentence is disposed of. 15. Cr. Revision No.1217 of 2025 is allowed in the above terms and disposed of. 16. Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of.