Jharkhand High Court
Shankar Sahu vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 27 of 2016
Shankar Sahu --- --- Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Rohit Bhatia --- --- Opp. Parties
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath
---
For the Petitioner: Mr. Pawan Kr. Pathak, Advocate
For the O.P-State: A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2: Mr. J.J. Sanga, Advocate
---
16 / 16.10.2023 Petitioner has filed this application against the judgment dated
09.10.2015, passed by Sri Md. Taufiqul Hassan, Additional Judicial
Commissioner-XI, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 69/2014, whereby and
wherein, the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XI, Ranchi dismissed
the appeal of the petitioner and the upheld the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 26.02.2014, passed by Sri Rajkumar Mishra, Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case no. 604/2009, holding the
petitioner guilty for the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act and thereby
sentencing him to undergo S.I for six months. Petitioner was also directed to
compensate the opposite party no. 2 by paying Rs. 15.00 lakh to him.
2. Prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the complaint case filed
by the opposite party no. 2, alleging therein that he had entered into an
agreement with the petitioner for purchase of land appertaining to Plot No.
2122, Ward No. 2(old), Holding No. 1600 area 1400 sq. ft situated on Old
Commissioner Compound, Daily Market for a consideration amount of Rs.
12.00 lakh. However, there was delay in execution of the sale deed. As such,
opposite party no. 2 demanded his money back. Petitioner issued a cheque
amounting to Rs. 10.50 lakh dated 05.09.2008, payable at Punjab and Singh
Bank, Main Road Branch, Ranchi to the opposite party no. 2. When the cheque
was placed for encashment on 08.09.2008, it was returned with an endorsement
that the cheque could not honoured for want of sufficient fund. Thereafter,
lawyer's notice was given to the petitioner on 20.01.2009, requesting him to
pay the bounced amount within 30 days, failing which necessary action will be
taken. Petitioner did not return the said amount within the stipulated period.
Accordingly, this complaint case was filed.
3. In order to prove its case, opposite party no. 2 has adduced both oral and
documentary evidences. On the basis of the evidences available on the record,
learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have come to a
concurrent findings regarding the guilt of the petitioner.
4. I.A. No. 4947/2016 has been filed jointly by the petitioner and the
opposite party no. 2, stating that they have settled their dispute and the opposite
party no. 2 does not want to pursue the case any further.
5. Offence under section 138 of N.I. Act is compoundable in nature. Parties
have settled their dispute. Accordingly, parties are directed to compound the
case. As parties have settled the dispute, the impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 26.02.2014, passed by the learned Trial Court,
holding the petitioner guilty for the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act and
thereby sentencing him to undergo S.I for six months and further directing him
to compensate the opposite party no. 2 by paying Rs. 15.00 lakh, is set aside.
6. Both this revision application and I.A. No. 4947/2016 are allowed.
(Ambuj Nath, J)
Ranjeet/
Uploaded
