Following settlement, the Court directed compounding proceedings and restrained coercive steps against the petitioner.

The petitioner challenged his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, recorded by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sardulgarh, in Complaint No. NACT/119/2020, by judgment dated 01.08.2022.

He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years.

The appellate court suspended his sentence on 16.08.2022 subject to deposit of 20% of the compensation amount.

Upon his failure to comply with that condition, the Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, issued warrants of arrest by order dated 27.10.2025, and dismissed the appeal.

During the pendency of the revision petition, the parties amicably settled the dispute.

The petitioner handed over cheque No. 150361 dated 01.09.2026 for ₹90,000 towards full and final settlement, which was accepted by counsel for the complainant.

Whether, in view of the parties’ amicable settlement and the complainant’s acceptance of the settlement cheque, the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be compounded.

Whether coercive steps, including execution of the warrants issued against the petitioner, should remain suspended pending consideration of the compounding application.

The proceedings arose from an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, concerning dishonour of a cheque.

The court proceeded on the basis that the parties could seek compounding of the offence after settlement, and accordingly directed the petitioner to file an appropriate application for compounding.

Pending such application, the court exercised its supervisory/revisional jurisdiction to direct that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner.

The petitioner’s conviction and sentence, as well as the subsequent appellate order resulting in issuance of warrants, were under challenge.

However, the subsequent settlement materially altered the circumstances.

The complainant’s counsel expressly accepted the cheque for ₹90,000 and stated that no dispute subsisted between the parties.

In light of this joint position, the court did not finally determine the revision on merits but facilitated the statutory process of compounding by directing the petitioner to file an appropriate application within one week.

To preserve the settlement process and prevent the petitioner from being subjected to immediate coercive action, the court directed that no coercive steps be taken until the matter was taken up further.

The petitioner was directed to move an application for compounding the offence within one week.

The matter was adjourned to 18.09.2026, and, in the meantime, no coercive steps were ordered to be taken against the petitioner.

The supplied order does not finally compound the offence or set aside the conviction; it grants interim protection and facilitates consideration of compounding.