Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sujit Kr. Chakraborty vs Unknown on 28 February, 2023
67 28.02.2023
CRR 1896 of 2016
with
I.A. No. CRAN 1 of 2016 (Old No. CRAN 3756 of 2016)
CRAN 3 of 2022
I.A. No. CRAN 5 of 2017 (Old No. CRAN 621 of 2017)
In the matter of: Sujit Kr. Chakraborty
... petitioner
Mr. Suman De
... for the petitioner
Mr. Arani Bhattacharyya
Ms. Anindita Mukherjee
... for the opposite party no. 2
Mr. Dey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has
moved an application being CRAN 3 of 2022. In the same, the
petitioner has contended about coming to a settlement in this case
with the opposite party by duly remitting the outstanding amount
alleged to have been defalcated by him. On the said fact and ground,
the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate order of this Court
dismissing of the present revision petition.
A supplementary affidavit has been filed today on behalf of
the opposite party no. 2 duly supporting and corroborating the above
facts as stated by the petitioner. Let the same be kept with the
record.
The instant petition is preferred to challenge the impugned
order dated 30.03.2016 passed in criminal appeal no. 101/2014 by
the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 1 st
Court, City Sessions Court, Calcutta. The appeal was related to an
order of conviction by the learned Magistrate in complaint case no.
235/2011. The present petitioner was alleged to have been defalcated
an amount of Rs. 1 lakh, the cheque had been issued in discharge of
valid debt but dishonoured. Ultimately, the petitioner was convicted
in the said complaint case as mentioned hereinabove and such order
of conviction, when challenged in the appeal, was upheld by the
appellate court also.
Thus, being aggrieved by such order, the petitioner has
come up by way of this petition before this Court.
From the application of the petitioner as well as the
supplementary affidavit submitted on behalf of the opposite party no.
2, it transpires that during pendency of this case, both the parties
have come to a compromise when the petitioner has remitted the
entire amount in this case by paying Rs. 45,000.00 by cheque and
remitting an amount of Rs. 55,000.00 with the learned trial court in
due discharge of his liability. It is also submitted that the amount of
money deposited by the petitioner with the learned trial court has
been withdrawn by the opposite party.
Thus, the facts and circumstances of the instant case
prompts this Court to find that in this case nothing remains for
adjudication any further and the compromise arrived at by the parties
may be accepted as due discharge of liability by the petitioner with
respect to the dishonored cheque.
Accordingly, it is ordered that the impugned judgment and
order of the learned trial court dated 30.03.2016 in criminal appeal
no. 101/2014 and also the judgment in complaint case no. 235 of
2011 of the Court of A.C.M.M., Kolkata be set aside being devoid of
any merit.
With the above directions, the instant revisional application
stands disposed of. Consequently, the connected applications, if any,
also stand disposed of.
There will be however no order as costs.
(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)
