Mithilesh Prasad Sinha vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 1442 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   Cr. Revision No. 299 of 2019
                         with
                   I.A. No. 1434 of 2021
                         ...

Mithilesh Prasad Sinha                     ....       Petitioner
                         -V e r s u s-
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Bhola Sao                                ..... Opposite Parties
                         ...
Coram:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA
                           ...

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, APP For the O. P. No. 2 : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate.

...

06/22.03.2021

1. The revision is directed against the judgment dated 01.02.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Koderma in Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 2018, affirming the judgment dated 14.05.2018 passed by the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in Complaint Case No. 491 of 2017 (T.R. No.959 of 2018) whereby the petitioner has been found guilty and convicted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of 1 year and pay Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs only) as compensation to the complainant.

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 resolved the dispute and in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the petitioner has paid the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs) to Opposite Party 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 Opposite Party No.02 has admitted that the petitioner has paid the amount as ordered by the Court to Opposite Party No. 02. It is submitted that since Opposite Party 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 amount as full and final settlement of the dispute and the offence under Section 138 of the N. I. Act is compoundable, as such, the compromise is allowed. Taking into account the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, the continuation of further proceeding in the case shall only be an exercise in futility leading to wastage of time and an abuse of the process of Court. Thus, in view of the compromise arrived at by the parties and in the interest of justice, the judgment dated 01.02.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 2018 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Koderma and the judgment dated 14.05.2018 passed by the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in Complaint Case No. 491 of 2017 (T.R. No.959 of 2018) are, hereby, quashed and set aside,

5. In the result, the petitioner is acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I Act in terms of the joint compromise accordingly I.A. No. 1434 of 2021 is, hereby, allowed.

(AMITAV K. GUPTA, J.) APK