Arunjay Narayan Sinha vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 2386 Jhar

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                     Cr. Revision No. 803 of 2016
                                                 With
                                         I.A. No. 5227 of 2023

              Arunjay Narayan Sinha                   ---           ---     Petitioner
                                                Versus
              1. The State of Jharkhand
              2. Sripati Singh                           ---          ---    Opp. Parties
                                                        ---

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath

---

For the Petitioner: Mr. Deepankar, Advocate For the State: Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, A. P.P For the O.P. No. 2: Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, Advocate

---

08 / 20.07.2023 Petitioner has filed this revision application against the judgement dated 13.04.2016, passed by the Shri Raghubar Dayal, Additional Sessions Judge- VII, Palamau at Daltonganj in Criminal Appeal No. 30/2010, whereby and wherein, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Palamau at Daltonganj dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.02.2010 passed by Shri Abhash Kumar Verma, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Daltonganj, Palamau in Complaint Case No. 423/2005, whereby and wherein, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Daltonganj, Palamau held the petitioner guilty of the offence under section 138 N.I. Act and thereby sentenced him to undergo S.I for six months along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the aforesaid offence. In default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo S.I for one month and was also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/-.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that parties have settled their dispute. I.A. No. 5227/2023 has been filed bringing on record the fact that the parties have settled their dispute. It has been prayed that the parties may be permitted to compound the case.

3. Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, has confirmed this fact that the parties have settled their dispute. Offence under section 138 N.I. Act is compoundable.

4. Considering the fact that the parties have compromised the case during pendency of this revision application, they are permitted to compound the case. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court, so confirmed by the learned Appellate Court, is hereby set aside.

5. This revision application is allowed. I.A. No. 5227/2023 and I.A. No. 4580/2017 stands disposed of.

(Ambuj Nath, J) Ranjeet/