Jharkhand High Court
Amjad Khan vs State Of Jharkhand on 8 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 826 of 2020
with
I.A. No. 104 of 2021
&
I.A. No. 146 of 2021
...
Amjad Khan .... Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
1.State of Jharkhand
2.Dhaneshwar Pandey ..... 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.
...
I.A. No. 104 of 2021
...
1. This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 5
of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 202 days in
preferring the present revision.
2. Learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2
has not raised any serious objection.
3. Heard. In view of the reason assigned in para-18 sufficient
cause and reasonable explanation is made out, accordingly the
delay is condoned.
4. In the result, I.A. No. 104 of 2021 stands allowed.
...
Cr. Revision No. 826 of 2020
...
1. Joint compromise petition being I.A. No. 146 of 2021 has
been filed by the petitioner and the Opposite Party No. 02.
2. This revision has been preferred against the judgment dated
22.05.2019, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 85 of 2018 by the
learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Lohardaga,
affirming the judgment dated 06.09.2018, whereby the petitioner
has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instrument Act, by the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Lohardaga, in Complaint Case No. 336 of 2017, (T.R. No. 586 of
2018) and ordered to pay the compensation of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees
Sixty Thousand only), in default thereof, to suffer S.I of six
months.
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 22.05.2019, passed in Criminal Appeal
No. 85 of 2018 by the learned Principal District and Sessions
Judge, Lohardaga and the judgment dated 06.09.2018, passed by
the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga, in
Complaint Case No. 336 of 2017, (T.R. No. 586 of 2018) 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.146 of 2021, is, hereby, allowed.
(AMITAV K. GUPTA, J.)
APK
