RANCHI, India, Jan. 8 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Dec. 8:
1. Heard Ms. Sanjana Kumari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for the State and Mr. Jitendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the complainant/opposite party no.2.
2. This criminal revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 20.12.2024 passed by the learned J.M.F.C.-XVI, Ranchi in Complaint Case No.5742/2022, whereby, the petitioner has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and he has been sentenced to undergo S.I. for 6 months and also to fine of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant/opposite party no.2 under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner has also challenged the judgment dated 28.01.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No.27/2025, whereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment of the learned trial court has been affirmed.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the matter is arising under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. She further submits that now a good sense has prevailed between the parties and they have compromised the matter and the joint compromise petition has been filed in the form of I.A. No.6293 of 2025. She then submits that the awarded compensation amount of Rs.3,00,000/- has already been paid to the complainant by the petitioner. She next submits that the matter is arising under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and it is compoundable under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. On these grounds, she submits that the joint compromise petition and this petition may kindly be allowed.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that it appears that the compromise is there between the parties in view of the joint compromise petition.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant/opposite party no.2 accepts the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and submits that the complainant has already received the compensation amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and in view of that, the complainant does not want to proceed with the matter.
6. When the parties have compromised the matter and the Court is satisfied regarding the genuineness of the settlement, the conviction of the accused would not serve any purpose and it is required to be set-aside. A Reference may be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of New Win Export and another v. A. Subramaniam, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1741. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said judgment read as under:
"6. At this juncture, we would also like to reiterate a few words regarding the principles of compounding of offences in the context of NI Act. It is to be remembered that dishonour of cheques is a regulatory offence which was made an offence only in view of public 4interest so that the reliability of these instruments can be ensured. A large number of cases involving dishonour of cheques are pending before courts which is a serious concern for our judicial system. Keeping in mind that the 'compensatory aspect' of remedy shall have priority over the 'punitive aspect', courts should encourage compounding of offences under the NI Act if parties are willing to do so. (See: Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 6631, Gimpex Private Limited v. Manoj Goel (2022) 11 SCC 7052, Meters And Instruments Private Limited And Anr. v. Kanchan Mehta (2018) 1 SCC 5603)
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x%2F%2BQOPehoCrtu8ovXAW44DWBdWG3Fd0A651UKwdkrxCN&caseno=Cr.Rev./508/2025&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010077962025&state_code=7&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
