Ravindra Kumar Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 64 Jhar

                               -1-

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
            Cr. Revision No.552 of 2020
                      With
                I.A. No.18 of 2021

    Ravindra Kumar Mahto                       ......       Petitioner

                           Versus
    1.   The State of Jharkhand
    2.   Santosh Kumar Singh                   .....    Opp. Parties

                           ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA

---------

    For the Petitioner     : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Advocate
    For the State          : Mrs. Lily Sahay, A.P.P
    For the O.P. No.02     : Mr. Sachin Mahato, Advocate
                            ---------

04/Dated: 06th January, 2021

1. This revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 06.01.2020, passed in Criminal Appeal No.107 of 2017 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - IV, Bokaro, affirming the judgment dated 31.08.2017, whereby the petitioner has been convicted of the offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro, in C.P Case No.45 of 2012, T.R. Case No.201 of 2017. The petitioner has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of one year and to pay the compensation of Rs.1,47,000/- (Rupees one lakh forty forty seven thousand only).

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 entered into an agreement dated 22.06.2020 and amicably settled the matter. It is submitted that joint compromise petition has been filed vide I.A. No.18 of 2021 and the petitioner has given Demand Draft amounting to Rs.1,30,000/- and cash of Rs.20,000/-, to the complainant/ O.P. No.02.

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

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/ O.P. No.02 has admitted that the petitioner has

paid Rs.1,50,000/-, as full and final settlement amount, to the complainant. It is submitted that since the complainant's grievance has been redressed, he does not want to proceed further with prosecution of the case.

4. Heard. Considering, the fact, that both the parties have amicably settled the matter and the complainant has received Rs.1,50,000/- and the offence under Section 138 of the N. I. Act is compoundable, accordingly the compromise is allowed. In view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, the continuation of further proceeding in the case shall only be an exercise in futility resulting in wastage of time and an abuse of the process of Court, thus, for the ends of justice, the judgment dated 06.01.2020, passed in Criminal Appeal No.107 of 2017 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - IV, Bokaro and the judgment dated 31.08.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro, in C.P Case No.45 of 2012, are, hereby, quashed and set aside,

5. For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner is acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I Act in terms of the joint compromise entered into between the parties.

6. In the result, the revision stands allowed.

(AMITAV K. GUPTA, J.) Chandan/-