Jharkhand High Court
Shamayun Sheikh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 September, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 618 of 2012
Shamayun Sheikh, Son of Late Naresh Sheikh
Deleted vide order dt. 21.09.2021
Irin Parvin, wife of late Shamayun Sheikh (deceased
petitioner), resident of Kailash Nagar Near Maal Godam,
Pakur, P.S. Pakur (T), District-Pakur (Jharkhand).
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Satnam Singh, son of Sri Harbansh Singh, resident of
Mohalla Tantipara, P.O.-Pakur, P.S.-Pakur (T), District-
Pakur ... ... Opp. Parties
With
Cr. Revision No. 620 of 2012
Shamayun Sheikh, Son of Late Naresh Sheikh
Deleted vide order dt. 21.09.2021
Irin Parvin, wife of late Shamayun Sheikh (deceased
petitioner), resident of Kailash Nagar Near Maal Godam,
Pakur, P.S. Pakur (T), District-Pakur (Jharkhand).
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Md. Mahmood Alam, son of Md. Khajamuddin, Resident of
Harindanga Bazar, P.S.-Pakur (T), District-Pakur
... ... Opp. Parties
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, Advocate
(In Cr. Rev. No. 618/2012)
Mr. Jitendra Pandey, Advocate
(In Cr. Rev. No. 620/2012)
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Sanat Kumar Jha, Advocate
in both the cases
---
Through: Video Conferencing
12/28.09.2021
1. Heard Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner in both the cases along
with Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate.
2. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra and Mr. Jitendra
Pandey, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the opposite
party-State in Cr. Revision No. 618/2012 and Cr. Revision No.
620/2012 respectively.
3. Heard Mr. Sanat Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the opposite party No.-2 in both the cases.
4. These criminal revision applications have been filed by
the original petitioner for the following reliefs: -
In Cr. Revision No. 618 of 2012
"That this petition is being preferred against the
impugned Judgment dated 05.05.2012 passed by Sri
Shrikant Roy, learned Addl. Sessions Judge I, Pakur in
Criminal Appeal No. 18/2010 whereby learned court
below has confirmed the Judgment and order dated
17.03.2010 passed by Sri Peeyush Kumar, learned
Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Pakur in PCR case
no. 244.07 (corresponding to T.R. No. 588/2010)
whereunder the learned trial court has convicted under
section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and
passed sentence undergo RI for a period of 6 months
and also pay fine of Rs. 60,000/-."
In Cr. Revision No. 620 of 2012
"That this petition is being preferred against the
impugned Judgment dated 05.05.2012 passed by Sri
Shrikant Roy, learned Addl. Sessions Judge I, Pakur in
Criminal Appeal No. 19/2010 whereby learned court
below has confirmed the Judgment and order dated
17.03.2010 passed by Sri Peeyush Kumar, learned
Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Pakur in PCR case
no. 49/2008 (corresponding to T.R. No. 587/2010)
whereunder the learned trial court has convicted under
section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and
passed sentence undergo RI for a period of 9 months
and also pay fine of Rs. 1,14,600/- and in default of
payment of fine, he shall sentence undergo RI for a
period of 6 months."
5. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that
during the pendency of the present case, the original petitioner
has expired and his wife has been substituted. It has been
submitted by the learned senior counsel that the dispute
between the parties in connection with both the cases has been
settled out of court and in view of the settlement out of court,
he has been instructed that the petitioner does not want to press
these two petitions.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.-2 has also
submitted that as per his instructions, both the matter have
been settled out of court.
7. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the opposite
party-State submit that if the matter has been settled out of
court and the petitioner does not want to press the present
petitions, they do not have any objection. They also submit that
the present matter relates to bouncing of two different cheques
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the
matter is between the petitioner-Shamayun Sheikh (since
deceased) and the opposite party No.-2 in respective cases.
8. Considering the submissions made, the present criminal
revision applications are disposed of as not pressed.
9. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
10. Let the lower court records be immediately sent back to
the court concerned.
11. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned
court below through 'e-mail/FAX'.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
