$~32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P.(NI) 60/2026 and CRL.M.(BAIL) 418/2026 NEERAJ KUMAR .....Revisionist Through: Mr. Raj Kumar & Mr. Nitin Singh Kathayat, Advocates. versus SMT. INDU BALA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP. Respondent in person through VC. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 22.07.2026 1. The present revision petition has been preferred assailing the judgment dated 31.07.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-07, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.165/2023, whereby the judgment of conviction dated 16.08.2023 and the order on sentence dated 25.08.2023 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate were affirmed. 2. The prosecution alleges that the respondent/complainant and the revisionist were known to each other through one Raju, the son of the complainant's elder sister. It is alleged that, after an earlier loan transaction was duly repaid, the complainant developed confidence in the revisionist and several monetary transactions took place between them. In April 2013, the revisionist allegedly approached the complainant seeking a friendly loan of Rs.9,35,000/- for his business. The complainant is stated to have arranged 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 25/07/2026 at 11:38:16 the said amount from her own funds as well as with the assistance of her relatives and friends and advanced the same to the revisionist on 20.04.2013. Further, towards discharge of the said liability, the revisionist allegedly issued cheque bearing No.565816 dated 20.03.2014 for a sum of Rs.9,35,000/- drawn on Bank of India, Nand Nagri Market Branch, Delhi. 3. It is also alleged that, at the request of the revisionist, the cheque was presented towards the end of April 2014, whereupon it was dishonoured vide return memo dated 30.04.2014 with the remarks "Funds Insufficient." Consequently, the respondent instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, [“NI Act”] which culminated in the conviction of the revisionist. 4. Today when the matter is taken up, learned counsel appearing on behalf of parties submit that they have amicably resolved all their disputes. 5. The respondent/complainant appears through Video Conferencing and submits that she has received the settled amount of Rs.2,50,000/- towards full and final settlement of all her claims arising out of the present proceedings. She further submits that she has no surviving grievance against the revisionist and has no objection if the offence is compounded, as of now. The respondent further states that the aforesaid settlement has been arrived at voluntarily, out of her own free will, without any force, coercion or undue influence. 6. The course adopted by this Court is in consonance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H.,1 wherein, while examining the scope and effect of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, it was held as under: 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 25/07/2026 at 11:38:16 “12. Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is in the nature of an enabling provision which provides for the compounding of offences prescribed under the same Act, thereby serving as an exception to the general rule incorporated in sub-section (9) of Section 320 CrPC which states that “No offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section”. A bare reading of this provision would lead us to the inference that offences punishable under laws other than the Penal Code also cannot be compounded. However, since Section 147 was inserted by way of an amendment to a special law, the same will override the effect of Section 320(9) CrPC, especially keeping in mind that Section 147 carries a non obstante clause.” [Emphasis Supplied] 7. Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case, in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the statement made by the respondent/complainant that she has received the settled amount and has no objection to the compounding of the offence, and having regard to Section 147 of the NI Act, the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act is permitted to be compounded. 8. Consequently, the impugned judgment dated 31.07.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, as well as the judgment of conviction dated 16.08.2023 and the order on sentence dated 25.08.2023 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, are hereby set aside. 9. With the aforesaid directions, the present revision petition, along with the pending application(s), stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 22, 2026 Aks/ss 1 (2010) 5 SCC 663. 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 25/07/2026 at 11:38:16