Court Allows Criminal Revision, Emphasizes Genuine Compromises

The criminal revision was allowed by the court, condoning the delay in filing based on justifiable reasons. The petitioner's challenge to the convictions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was dismissed in previous judgments. A compromise between the parties, facilitated by the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, led to the suspension of the sentence or acquittal of the petitioner. Legal provisions under the Act and Cr.P.C. were considered, emphasizing the importance of genuine compromises in resolving disputes. The court set aside the convictions, requiring the petitioner to deposit a specified amount within a timeframe, with non-compliance leading to dismissal of the revision.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the criminal revision.
2. Challenge to the judgments of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
3. Compromise between the parties and its effect on the criminal revision.
4. Legal provisions and previous judgments relevant to the case.

Detailed Analysis:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the criminal revision:
In CRM-8273-2021, the delay of 588 days in filing the criminal revision was condoned based on the reasons stated in the application supported by an affidavit. The application was allowed, indicating that the delay was justified and acceptable under the circumstances.

2. Challenge to the judgments of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:
The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Act for dishonoring a cheque and sentenced to imprisonment and a fine. The challenge was made against the judgments of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda, and the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda. The appeal against the conviction was dismissed, leading to the filing of the criminal revision.

3. Compromise between the parties and its effect on the criminal revision:
During the pendency of the appeal, a compromise was reached between the parties through the Mediation and Conciliation Centre. The terms included the petitioner paying an amount to the complainant in installments. The complainant submitted an additional affidavit confirming the compromise and expressing no objection to suspending the sentence or acquitting the petitioner. Both parties affirmed the genuineness of the compromise, emphasizing its role in maintaining peace and harmony.

4. Legal provisions and previous judgments relevant to the case:
The Court referred to Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and Section 320(6) of the Cr.P.C. in considering the compounding of the offense. Previous judgments, including one in CRR no.390 of 2017, were cited to support the decision to allow the criminal revision based on a valid compromise. The Court emphasized the compensatory nature of offenses under Section 138 of the Act and the importance of upholding genuine compromises to promote reconciliation between parties.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the criminal revision, setting aside the judgments of conviction, subject to the petitioner depositing a specified amount within a given timeframe. Failure to comply would result in the dismissal of the revision. All pending applications were disposed of accordingly, emphasizing the significance of the genuine compromise in resolving the legal dispute between the parties.

---