Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:43270 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 1690 of 2024 Revisionist :- Santosh Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Manoj Kumar,Neeraj Kumar Srivastava,Pankaj Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satya Prakash Shukla,Shri Prakash Dwivedi Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J. In Re: Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 2 of 2024. 1.The instant criminal revision is reported to be delayed by 453 days. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2 has not raised any objection against the application for condonation of delay filed by the revisionist. 3. I have considered the contents of the affidavit filed by the revisionist in support of his application for condonation of delay and I find that the delay in filing of this criminal revision had been sufficiently explained. 4. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay in filing of this criminal revision is hereby allowed and the delay in filing this criminal revision is condoned. Order on memo of revision 5. A joint affidavit filed on behalf of the revisionist and Opposite Party No. 2 is taken on record. 6. Heard Sri Satya Prakash Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and Mr. Shri Prakash Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2. 7. The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the judgment and order dated 21.10.2021 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur in Complaint Case No. 502 of 2013 (Keshav Singh Vs. Santosh Kumar) whereby, the revisionist had been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and had been sentenced for simple imprisonment of one year along with fine of Rs. 1,25,000/-. 8. The revisionist through this revision has also challenged the judgment and order dated 10.2.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mirzapur in Criminal Appeal No. 316 of 2021 (Santosh Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P.) whereby, the criminal appeal filed by the revisionist against the order of conviction had been dismissed and the order of conviction and sentence had been affirmed. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist, at the very outset, has submitted 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. 10. It has further been submitted that the revisionist and Opposite Party No. 2, both have filed a joint affidavit before this Court wherein they have categorically stated that they have settled their dispute and the revisionist had paid Rs. 1,00,000/- to Opposite Party No. 2. In the affidavit it has also mentioned that the revisionist had already paid Rs. 31,250/- to Opposite Party No.2. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that it is well settled proposition of law through catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiation Instruments Act, 1881 is civil in nature and therefore, the mater can be compromised amongst the parties, at any stage. 12. It has further been argued that since the parties have entered into a compromise and a joint affidavit had been filed before this Court, it would be in the interest of justice that this Court may allow this criminal revision and may set aside the orders impugned in this criminal revision with a further direction to release the revisionist from judicial custody, forthwith. 13. Mr. Shri Prakash Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2 had also admitted before this Court that the revisionist and Opposite Party No. 2 have entered into a compromise and now no dispute survives amongst them. 14. Mr. Shri Prakash Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2 has further submitted that Opposite Party No. 2 does not have any objection if this criminal revision is allowed and the orders impugned in this criminal revision are set aside and further direction is issued for release of the revisionist from the judicial custody. 15. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that the parties have entered into a compromise and have settled their dispute out of the Court, amicably. This Court further finds that it is well settled proposition of law through catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is of civil nature and therefore parties can compromise their dispute outside the Court, at any stage of the proceedings and once the compromise had been entered into in between the parties, the Courts cannot allow the order of conviction and sentence to sustain. 16. In view of the aforesaid arguments particularly keeping in view the stand taken by the learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2, this criminal revision is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 21.10.2021 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur in Complaint Case No. 502 of 2013 (Keshav Singh Vs. Santosh Kumar) and the impugned order dated 10.2.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mirzapur in Criminal Appeal No. 316 of 2021 (Santosh Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P.) are hereby set aside. 17. It is directed that the revisionist be released from judicial custody, forthwith. Order Date :- 24.3.2025 Gaurav Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad