1. RULE. Learned advocates waive service of Rule on behalf of the respective respondents.

2. Challenge in this Revision Application is given to the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29.11.2023, passed by the learned Principal Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mansa in Criminal Case no.1008 of 2021, which was confirmed by the judgment and order dated 29.10.2025 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar in Criminal Appeal no.249 of 2023.

3. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the affidavit-in-reply cum compromise affidavit has been placed on record of the power of attorney, who is the real brother of the complainant. By way of power of attorney, the complainant-brother has given all the power to Patel Dilipkumar Madhabhai, who is before this Court.

          3.1 Patel Dilipkumar Madhabhai has stated that the total 50% of the cheque amount is before the trial court and the rest of the amount has been paid in cash and since he has received the total money, he under the instructions of his brother, does not want to proceed with the matter and stated that his brother has expressed the desire to compound the dispute.

4. Learned advocate for respondent no.2 - original complainant has placed on record the affidavit-in-reply cum compromise affidavit and stated that the complainant has received the amount as agreed between the parties and the complainant does not want to pursue the matter now in view of amicable settlement and has given consent for compounding the offence. The same is taken on record. Today, respondent no.2 is present before this Court and the respondent no.2 has affirmed the contents of the affidavit and is identified by learned advocate Mr. Vishal Patel for respondent no.2.

5. Since the complainant has given consent for compounding the offence, keeping in mind the object of Section 147 of the NI Act, which is an enabling provision which provides for compounding the offence and may require the consent of the aggrieved for compounding the offence, however, the specific provision under Section 147, inserted by way of amendment towards special law, would give overriding effect to sub- section (1) of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as has been observed in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Baba Lal, AIR 2010 SC 1907. Accordingly, as the dispute has been resolved and the amount has been paid to the complainant, in consonance with the object of the N.I. Act and the provisions under Section 147 thereof, the matter is considered as compounded.

6. In aforesaid view of the matter, the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court of conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, as affirmed by the learned Appellate Court, are quashed and set aside. The applicant stands acquitted.

          6.1 The amount of Rs.3,25,000/- which is deposited before the trial Court as well as the appellate Court has to be paid to Patel Dilipkumar Madhabhai on behalf of his brother as the power of attorney holder. Thus, the trial Court as well as the appellate Court are directed to pay the amount as deposited in connection with the proceedings under Section 138 of the present matter to Patel Dilipkumar Madhabhai by verifying copy of the power of attorney and by verifying the identity.

7. Accordingly, the present application is allowed in the above terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.