- (1.) The brief facts of the case are that a criminal complaint was presented by respondent No. 2-complainant, Sanjay Goel, against the petitioner, Daya Ram Paharia, on account of bouncing of cheque worth Rs. 61,000/-. After the trial, the petitioner was held guilty by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year besides compensation of Rs. 75,000/- to be paid to respondent No. 2-complainant, Sanjay Goel. The petitioner challenged the judgment of conviction, dated 9.9.2011, and the order of sentence, dated 10.9.2011, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, by way of an appeal, which was dismissed on 8.9.2012. The judgments of the two Courts below are under challenge before this Court by way of the present criminal revision petition.
(2.) During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties, under instructions from their respective clients, effected a compromise. They agreed that the petitioner-accused would pay Rs. 1,00,000/- to respondent No. 2-complainant, to resolve the present controversy. Resultantly, Demand Draft No. 296816, dated 17.9.2012, drawn on Syndicate Bank, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi, worth Rs. 75,000/-, in addition to Rs. 25,000/- in cash, total Rs. 1,00,000/-, have been paid to Mr. Manoj Kumar Sood, Advocate, for onward transmission to respondent No. 2-complainant, Sanjay Goel.
(3.) The statements of the learned counsel representing the petitioner and respondent No. 2 have been recorded separately in which they have stated with regard to the terms and conditions of the compromise. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2-complainant has stated with regard to acceptance of an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. 75,000/- by way of bank draft and Rs. 25,000/- in cash). He has also stated that his client - respondent No. 2 has no objection if the judgments passed by the two Courts below are set aside, the present criminal revision petition is accepted and the petitioner is acquitted in view of the compromise effected between respondent No. 2-complainant and the petitioner.;