Jharkhand High Court
Gopal Gope vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 August, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
( 2025:JHHC:22306 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 505 of 2025
Gopal Gope, aged abut 54 years, son of late Pairu Gope, resident of Basanti
Mata Colliery, P.O. Mugma, P.S. Mugma, District-Dhanbad, State-Jharkhand
...... ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Karu Yadav, son of Deoki Yadav, resident of Gajuwatand, P.O.and P.S.
Dhansar, District-Dhanbad, State-Jharkhand
..... ... Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioner :Mrs. Neeharika Mazumdar, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate
............
04/ 07.08.2025: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for
the State and learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.
2. This revision application has been preferred challenging the
legality propriety and correctness of the judgement dated 19.03.2025 passed by
learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2025, whereby
the learned Sessions Judge has been pleased to dismiss the appeal preferred by
the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
18.01.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dhanbad in C.P.
Case No. 579 of 2019/T.R. No. 248 of 2025 and also challenging the judgment
of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.01.2025 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 579 of 2019/T.R. No. 248
of 2025.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and also to pay a
fine of Rs. 8,00,000/- by way of compensation and if the same is not paid in time,
the same shall be recoverable under the provisions of section 421 of Cr.P.C,
corresponding to Section 461 of B.N.S.S, 2023. She further submits that for some
day the petitioner remained in custody and thereafter he has been released on bail.
She submits that now good sense has prevailed between the parties and the
petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- to the complaint in view of
judgment. She submits that section 138 of Negotiable of Instrument Act is
compoundable under section 147 N.I. Act.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant accepts the said submissions
and submits that the complainant has already received the said amount and
compromise has taken place and in this regard I.A. No. 10318 of 2025 has been
( 2025:JHHC:22306 )
filed for joint compromise. He submits that now the complainant does not want to
proceed with the case further.
5. Learned counsel for the State also accepts the said submission.
6. In view of above and considering the submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties it appears that the case is arising out of Section 138 of N.I.
Act, thereafter, appeal was preferred which has been dismissed and now good
sense has prevailed between the parties and the compensation amount has already
been paid to the complainant and for some time the petitioner has remained in
custody.
7. In view of above in the light of section 320(6) of Cr.P.C. the criminal
case is hereby compounded and the criminal revisional application is allowed in
above terms and disposed of. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
satyarthi-
