Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010076942026 2026:GAU-AS:11667 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./255/2026 DHIREN BAYAN S/O KANAK BAYAN VILLAGE - BARGUNARI, P.S.- PATHSALA, DISTRICT-BAJALI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:DEEP PATGIRI S/O CHITTARANJAN PATGIRI VILLAGE - MUGURIA P.S.- PATHSALA DISTRICT.-BAJALI ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N UDDIN, MR S K CHHETRY,MR. M ISLAM,MR. A GONI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS J RAJKUMARI(R2),MR. S BORA(R2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 17.08.2026 Heard Mr. N. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel-cum-Additional Public Prosecutor, assisted by Page No.# 2/4 Ms. R. Saloi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. S. Bora, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. In this petition, under Section 438, read with Sections 442 and 528 of the BNSS, 2023, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 20.01.2026, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bajali, Pathsala, in Criminal Appeal No. 4/2024. 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and order dated 20.01.2026, the learned Sessions Judge, Bajali, Pathsala (‘appellate Court’, for short) had upheld the judgment and order dated 06.02.2024, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bajali, Pathsala (‘trial Court’, for short), in N.I. Case No. 25/2015, whereby the petitioner was sentenced to pay compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, for the offence committed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 4. It is submitted at the bar that the petitioner was the accused in N.I. Case No. 25/2015, which was instituted by the respondent No. 2, namely, Shri Deep Patgiri. In the said case, the petitioner herein was convicted by the learned trial Court and was sentenced to pay compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, for the offence committed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, and being aggrieved, the petitioner had preferred an appeal, being Criminal Appeal No. 4/2024, before the learned appellate Court, and vide impugned judgment and order dated 20.01.2026, the learned appellate Court had upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner, under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition for setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 20.01.2026, passed by the learned appellate Court, in Criminal Appeal No. 4/2024, and also the judgment and order dated 06.02.2024, passed Page No.# 3/4 by the trial Court, in N.I. Case No. 25/2015. 5. Mr. Bora, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, by drawing attention of this Court to page No. 74 of the petition, submits that the respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit stating that he has received the compensation amount i.e. Rs. 4,00,000/- as awarded by the learned trial Court, and that in view of receipt of the said amount, the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 have settled the same and now, the respondent No. 2 has no grievance against the petitioner, and therefore, he has no objection in the event of quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 20.01.2026, passed by the learned appellate Court, in Criminal Appeal No. 4/2024, and the judgment and order dated 06.02.2024, passed by the trial Court, in N.I. Case No. 25/2015. 6. Mr. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter has been compromised between the parties and as such, the impugned judgment and order dated 20.01.2026, passed by the learned appellate Court, in Criminal Appeal No. 4/2024, and the judgment and order dated 06.02.2024, passed by the trial Court, in N.I. Case No. 25/2015, may be set aside and quashed. 6.1. In support of his submission, Mr. Uddin has referred to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Chand Garg vs. Harpal Singh and Anr., reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 865, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has allowed the appeal and consequently quashed the judgment and order of conviction and sentenced imposed on the appellant therein, and in arriving at the said decision, it has referred to its earlier decision in the case of B.V. Seshaiah vs. State of Telangana and Anr., reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 96. 7. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Page No.# 4/4 Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, and also perused the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2. 8. Indisputably, the petitioner stood convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and was sentenced to pay compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-, with default stipulation. The affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2 dated 26.06.2026, indicates that on payment of Rs. 4,00,000/- i.e. the compensation amount, he has settled the dispute with the petitioner herein, and he had made a declaration also, which is annexed with the affidavit as Annexure-A. 9. Accordingly, taking note of the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, and also in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.V. Seshaiah (supra), this Court is of the view that interest of justice would be meted out if the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned appellate Court and the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court are set aside and quashed. 10. Accordingly, impugned judgment and order dated 20.01.2026, passed by the learned appellate Court, in Criminal Appeal No. 4/2024, and the judgment and order dated 06.02.2024, passed by the trial Court, in N.I. Case No. 25/2015, stand set aside and quashed. 11. In terms of above, this petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant