Santosh Kumar Das vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 1198 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   Cr. Revision No. 870 of 2020
                         with
                   I.A. No. 372 of 2021
                         ...

Santosh Kumar Das                          ....       Petitioner
                         -V e r s u s-
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Balbinder Singh                          ..... Opposite Parties
                         ...
Coram:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA
                           ...

For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhay Kumar Chaturvedy, Advocate. For the State : Ms. Snehlika Bhagat, APP For the O. P. No. 2 : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate.

...

04/09.03.2021

1. The revision is directed against the judgment dated 10.09.2020, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 255 of 2020 by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur affirming the judgment dated 09.10.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, in C/1 case No. 1313 of 2013 corresponding to T.R. No.268 of 2018, whereby the petitioner has been found guilty and convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and ordered to pay the fine-cum-compensation of Rs.2,40,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs Forty Thousand only), in default thereof, to suffer simple imprisonment of 6 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 and I.A. No. 372 of 2021 has been filed containing the terms and conditions of the agreement. It is submitted that the petitioner has paid the agreed amount to opposite party no. 02.

Accordingly, prayer has been made to acquit the petitioner by setting aside the judgments of the courts below.

3. Learned counsel for opposite party no.02 has admitted that the petitioner has paid the agreed amount as full and final settlement to opposite party no.02. It is submitted that since opposite party no. 02 '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 agreed 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 and good feeling has been restored, hence continuation of further proceeding in the case will only be an exercise in futility and an abuse of the process of Court. Thus, for the ends of justice, the judgment dated 10.09.2020, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 255 of 2020 by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur and the judgment dated 09.10.2018, passed by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, in c/1 case No. 1313 of 2013/T.R. No.268 of 2018 are, hereby, quashed and set aside.

5. For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner is acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the N.I Act.

6. In the result, the revision stands allowed and accordingly I.A. No.372 of 2021 stands disposed off.

(AMITAV K. GUPTA, J.) APK