Jharkhand High Court
Md. Wasim Alam vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 1644 of 2019
with
I.A. No. 11957 of 2019
&
I.A. No. 4055 of 2020
&
I.A. No. 4047 of 2020
...
Md. Wasim Alam .... Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Sri Sambhu Lal ..... Opposite Parties
...
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA
...
For the Petitioner : Mr. Afaque Ahmed, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Anjani Kumar Toppo, APP.
For the O.P. No. 2 : M/s. P. K. Pathak
and S.K. Singh, Advocates.
...
06/25.02.2021
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to
mention the delay of 342 days in para 8 of the limitation petition
(I.A. No. 11957 of 2019)
2. Permission is accorded.
...
I.A. No. 11957 of 2019
...
1. This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 5
of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 342 days in
preferring the instant revision.
2. Learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2
have not raised any serious objection.
3. Heard. In view of the reason assigned in paras-4, 5 and 6
sufficient cause and reasonable explanation is made out,
accordingly the delay is condoned.
4. In the result, I.A. No. 11957 of 2019 stands allowed.
...
Cr. Revision No. 1644 of 2019
...
1. This revision has been preferred against the judgment dated
12.10.2018, passed in Cr. Appeal No. 34 of 2017, by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-XIV, Hazaribag, affirming the
judgment dated 10.04.2017, whereby the petitioner has been found
guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instrument Act, by the court of learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh, in Complaint Case No. 1216 of
2013, (T.R. No. 1526 of 2017) and ordered to pay the fine cum
compensation amount of Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand
only), in default thereof, to suffer S.I of 2 months.
2. 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.
It is submitted that joint compromise in terms of the
settlement arrived at between the parties has been filed as I.A.
No.4047 of 2020. On the above grounds, prayer has been made to
acquit the petitioner of the charge under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instrument Act.
3. Learned counsel for Opposite Party No.02 has consented that
payment of the entire as ordered by the courts below, has been
made 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 amicably resolved the dispute hence
continuation of further proceeding with the case will only be an
exercise in futility resulting in wastage of time of the Court. Thus,
in the interest of justice, the judgment dated 12.10.2018, passed in
Cr. Appeal No. 34 of 2017, by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-XIV, Hazaribag and the judgment dated 10.04.2017, passed
by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh, in
Complaint Case No. 1216 of 2013, (T.R. No. 1526 of 2017), 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, the revision is allowed accordingly I.A.
No.4047 of 2020 and I.A. No.4055 of 2020 stand disposed off.
(AMITAV K. GUPTA, J.)
APK
