SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS UKHC010138852026 CRLR/603/2026 Bhupal Ram Tamta --Revisionist Versus Dhirendra Singh Khati --Respondent Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Chandra Prakash, Advocate for the revisionist. 2. Mr. Sunil Chandra, Advocate for the respondent. 3. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 17.08.2022/25.08.2022 passed by learned ACJM, Nainital in Criminal Case No. 483 of 2020, whereby the learned ACJM, Nainital has convicted the revisionist under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced him accordingly. Challenge has also been made to the judgment and order dated 19.09.2025 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital in Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 2022, whereby, the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the revisionist. 4. Now, a compounding application, jointly signed by learned counsel for the respondent and learned counsel for the revisionist, has been filed duly supported by affidavits of the parties. Revisionist is in judicial custody. In the compounding application, affidavit has been filed by his mother. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the parties have now entered into a settlement, therefore, the matter needs to be compounded. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that dispute has now been amicably settled between the parties, therefore, his client wants to close the matter to ensure that peace is restored. 7. Today, respondent is present before this Court through video conferencing, who is duly identified by his counsel. The Court interacted with the respondent. He fairly submits that he has received the entire decretal amount and he does not want to proceed further with the case. 8. Both the parties also made a statement that, in view of the settlement, they want to close the matter. 9. Having regard to the nature of offence and also considering the broad guidelines issued by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh & others Vs State of Punjab & another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, request of the revisionist deserves to be acceded to. 10. Since the parties have entered into a compromise, therefore, possibility of the trial resulting into conviction of the accused is remote and bleak and, that being so, continuation of criminal proceedings would visit the accused with great oppression, prejudice and injustice. Rather, it would tantamount to abuse of process of law. Ends of justice would be met if criminal proceedings are put to an end, because this would allow the parties to translate their decision to live in peace in the reality. Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery. 11. In view of settlement arrived at between the parties, the present criminal revision is allowed. Consequently, the judgment and order dated 17.08.2022/25.08.2022 passed by learned ACJM, Nainital in Criminal Case No. 483 of 2020 as well as the judgment and order dated 19.09.2025 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital in Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 2022 and the entire proceedings arising out therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the revisionist. 12. Compounding application is, accordingly, disposed of. 13. Revisionist is in judicial custody. He shall be released from judicial custody forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. (Alok Mahra J.) 14.08.2026 Ujjwal