Reserved Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:21973 Court No. - 81 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2843 of 2024 Revisionist :- Prabhakar Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Mahesh Kumar Kuntal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gaurav Sharma Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J. 1. Heard Sri Mahesh Kumar Kuntal, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and Sri Gaurav Sharma, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2. 2. The instant Criminal Revision has been filed challenging therein, the judgement and order dated 29.08.2023 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Special Court (Section 138 N.I. Act) whereby, the revisionist had been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and had been sentenced for one year simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1,51,06,000/-. The revisionist through this revision has also challenged the judgement and order dated 15.05.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area Act, 1983), Court No. 3, Agra in Criminal Appeal No. 204 of 2023 whereby, the appeal filed by the revisionist had been dismissed. 3. Sri Mahesh Kumar Kuntal, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and Sri Gaurav Sharma, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2 have jointly submitted before this Court that after filing of this criminal revision, the revisionist and Opposite Party No. 2 have entered into a compromise in respect of the dispute which is subject matter of this criminal revision and have settled their dispute amicably. 4. The counsels have also apprised to this Court that the compromise-deed duly signed by the revisionist and Opposite Party No. 2 had also been brought on record of this criminal revision wherein, it had categorically been mentioned that Opposite Party No. 2 had received Rs. 70,00,000/- in total settlement of the dispute in question and thereby the revisionist and Opposite Party No. 2, both have settled their dispute amicably. 5. Learned counsels appearing for the parties have relied on the judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinay Devanna Nayak Vs. Ryot Seva Sahkari Bank Limited (2008) 2 SCC 305 and have submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in categorical terms had laid down the law that the matter which had constituted offence punishable under Section 138 N.I. Act, 1881 can be amicably settled by the parties at any stage i.e. even after conviction and rejection of appeal against the conviction. 6. Learned counsels appearing for the parties have also agreed that since the revisionist is in judicial custody therefore, this Court may issue a direction to the trial court to release the revisionist from the judicial custody forthwith. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and have perused the documents available on record of this criminal revision. 8. This Court finds that the revisionist and Opposite Party No. 2 have settled their dispute outside the court through a compromise and under the said compromise, Opposite Party No. 2 had also received Rs. 70,00,000/- 9. This Court also takes note of the fact that the learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2 has admitted before the Court that the dispute that is subject matter of this criminal revision, had been settled amicably amongst the parties. 10. Learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2 has also submitted before this Court that since the dispute amongst the parties has been settled, there is no reason for this Court to allow the conviction order and the appellate order to sustain. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgement rendered in the case of Vinay Devanna Nayak (Supra) had held that in the matters giving rise to an offence punishable under Section 138 N.I. Act, 1881, the parties can settle their dispute at any stage and once the dispute is settled amongst the parties, the conviction order passed by the trial court must be set-aside by the higher court. 12. For ready reference, relevant paragraphs of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Vinay Devanna Nayak (Supra) are extracted as under: "17. As observed by this Court in Electronics Trade & Technology Development Corpn. Ltd. v. Indian Technologists & Engineers (Electronics) (P) Ltd. [(1996) 2 SCC 739 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 454] the object of bringing Section 138 in the statute book is to inculcate faith in the efficacy of banking operations and credibility in transacting business on negotiable instruments. The provision is intended to prevent dishonesty on the part of the drawer of negotiable instruments in issuing cheques without sufficient funds or with a view to inducing the payee or holder in due course to act upon it. It thus seeks to promote the efficacy of bank operations and ensures credibility in transacting business through cheques. In such matters, therefore, normally compounding of offences should not be denied. Presumably, Parliament also realised this aspect and inserted Section 147 by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002 (Act 55 of 2002). The said section reads thus: "147. Offences to be compoundable.-Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable. "18. Taking into consideration even the said provision (Section 147) and the primary object underlying Section 138, in our judgment, there is no reason to refuse compromise between the parties. We, therefore, dispose of the appeal on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the appellant and the respondent. 19. For the foregoing reasons the appeal deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed by holding that since the matter has been compromised between the parties and the amount of Rs. 45,000/- has been paid by the appellant towards full and final settlement to the respondent-bank towards its dues, the appellant is entitled to acquittal. The order of conviction and sentence recorded by all courts is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge levelled against him." 13. The law in respect of the compromise regarding dispute amongst the parties in the matter giving rise to an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act is very clear and the parties are at liberty to settle their dispute through a compromise at any stage and once compromise is entered into between the parties, the order of conviction and the order passed by the appellate court affirming the conviction cannot be allowed to sustain. 14. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this criminal revision is allowed. The judgement and order dated 29.08.2023 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Special Court (Section 138 N.I. Act) and the judgement and order dated 15.05.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area Act, 1983), Court No. 3, Agra in Criminal Appeal No. 204 of 2023 are set-aside. 15. The trial court is directed to release the revisionist from the judicial custody, forthwith. 16. Let copy of this order be forwarded to the concerned trial court for necessary information and compliance. Order Date :- 17.2.2025 A. Mandhani Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK MANDHANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad