Amjad Khan vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 597 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   Cr. Revision No. 837 of 2020
                         with
                   I.A. No. 144 of 2021
                         ...

Amjad Khan                             ....          Petitioner
                         -V e r s u s-
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Raju Kumar Sahu                      .....    Opposite Parties
                         ...
Coram:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA
                           ...

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Ms. Anuradha Sahay, APP For the O. P. No. 2 : Mr. Binod Kumar, Advocate.

...

03/08.02.2021

1. In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, defects, as pointed out by the office, are, hereby, ignored for the time being.

...

Cr. Revision No. 837 of 2020 ...

1. Joint compromise petition being I.A. No. 144 of 2021 has been filed by the petitioner and the Opposite Party No.02.

2. This revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 12.06.2019, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2019 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Lohardaga, affirming the judgment dated 11.02.2019, whereby the petitioner has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, by the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga, in Complaint Case No. 338 of 2018, (T.R. No. 276 of 2019) and ordered to pay the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakh only), in default thereof, to suffer S.I of 1 year.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of this revision application, on the intervention of friends, well-wishers and relatives, both the parties have amicably settled and compromised the matter. In terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the petitioner has paid the settled amount to Opposite Party No.02.

Accordingly, prayer has been made to quash and set aside the judgments of the courts below.

3. Learned counsel for Opposite Party No.02 has admitted that the petitioner has paid the amount as full and final settlement to Opposite Party No. 02. It is submitted that since O. P. No. 2's grievance has been redressed therefore he does not want to proceed further with the prosecution of the case.

4. Heard. Considering, the fact, that both the parties have amicably settled the matter and Opposite Party No.02 has received the settled amount as full and final settlement of the dispute and the offence under Section 138 of the N. I. Act is compoundable, accordingly, the compromise is allowed. Taking into account that both the parties have resolved the dispute therefore continuation of further proceeding in the case will only be an exercise in futility and an abuse of the process of Court. Thus, in the interest of justice, the judgment dated 12.06.2019, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2019 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Lohardaga and the judgment dated 11.02.2019, passed by the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga, in Complaint Case No. 338 of 2018, (T.R. No. 276 of 2019) are, hereby, quashed and set aside,

5. In the result, the petitioner is acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the N.I Act in terms of the joint compromise.

6. In the result, I.A. No. 144 of 2021 is, hereby, allowed.

(AMITAV K. GUPTA, J.) APK