p. 1 $~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P. 196/2019, CRL.M.(BAIL) 335/2019 RAJEEV SHARMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Yogesh Maini, Advocate. versus SMT. GEETA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shray Kaushal, Advocate with Respondent in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 13.10.2025 1. The present revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 is directed against the order dated 14th February, 2019, passed by Special Judge-02 (P.C. Act), CBI, North West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 16/2019, titled Rajeev Sharma v. Geeta. 2. Pursuant to trial in the complaint filed by the Respondent, the Petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 18812 vide judgement of conviction dated 5th January, 2019. As per the order on sentence dated 9th January, 2019, the Petitioner was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 moths and pay a fine of INR 1,66,000/- to the Respondent as compensation. In default of payment of compensation, the Petitioner was directed to undergo simple 1 “CrPC” This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/10/2025 at 12:08:15 p. 2 imprisonment for a period of 2 months. 3. The appeal against the aforesaid judgement of conviction and order on sentence has been dismissed by impugned order dated 14th February, 2019. 4. In compliance with order dated 19th February, 2019, the Petitioner has deposited an amount of INR 2,00,000/- by way of a demand draft bearing No. 035002 dated 21st February, 2019 drawn on Axis Bank, with the Registrar General of this Court. 5. Subsequently, on 11th August, 2025, at joint request, parties were referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. Pursuant thereto, the parties have amicably resolved all their disputes and executed a Settlement Agreement dated 29th August, 2025, whereunder the Petitioner has agreed to pay a total sum of INR 2,20,000/- to the Respondent in full and final settlement of all claims. 6. The Respondent, who is present before this Court, affirms the terms of settlement and unequivocally states that he has no objection to the compounding of the offence. The Petitioner has handed over the entire settlement amount of INR 2,20,000/- to the Respondent by way of a demand draft bearing No. 004598 dated 9th October, 2025, drawn on Axis Bank. The Respondent has duly received and acknowledgment the payment. 7. The legal position on the issue of compounding of offences under 138 of NI Act is now well-settled. Section 147 of the NI Act makes offences under Section 138 compoundable, notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary in CrPC. The Supreme Court has consistently held that such compounding can be permitted at any stage of the proceedings, including 2 “NI Act” This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/10/2025 at 12:08:15 p. 3 after conviction.3 The continuation of criminal proceedings after the grievance of the complainant has been addressed would serve no meaningful purpose. 8. In Damodar S. Prabhu, the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for imposing costs while allowing compounding at various stages, with the aim of discouraging delayed settlements and preventing misuse of the process. Subsequently, in its recent decision in Sanjabji Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar & Anr.4 taking note of the substantial pendency of cheque dishonour cases across the country and the decline in prevailing interest rates, the Supreme Court modified the earlier guidelines in Damodar S. Prabhu regarding the quantum of costs to be imposed at the stage of compounding. 9. Ordinarily costs equivalent to 7.5% of the cheque amount must be imposed at the time of compounding. However, the Court is vested with the discretion to reduce the costs, depending on the specific circumstances of the case. In the present case, this Court has taken into account the Petitioner’s financial condition as disclosed during the proceedings and finds that imposing a higher cost would be unduly burdensome. Having regard to these peculiar circumstances, and in order to balance deterrence with fairness, the Petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of INR 5,000/- as costs with the Delhi Police Welfare Fund within a period of four weeks from today. 10. In view of the above, the conviction of the Petitioner under Section 138 of NI Act stands set aside on account of compounding of the offence, and the revision petition is disposed of. 3 Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663; K.M. Ibrahim v. K.P. Mohammed (2010) 1 SCC 798; O.P. Dholakia v. State of Haryana (2000) 1 SCC 762. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/10/2025 at 12:08:15 p. 4 11. Since the offence is compounded, the amount deposited by the Petitioner i.e., INR 2,00,000/- with the Registrar General of this Court, in terms of order dated 19th February, 2019, is directed to be released to the Petitioner along with accrued interest, if any. 12. With the above directions, the petition is disposed of along with the pending application. SANJEEV NARULA, J OCTOBER 13, 2025 nk 4 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2069. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/10/2025 at 12:08:15