[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Swapan Kumar Sarkar @ Sapan Kumar Sarkar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 December, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
( 2025:JHHC:36698 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No. 575 of 2024
Swapan Kumar Sarkar @ Sapan Kumar Sarkar, aged about 54 years,
son of Late Amar Chand Sarkar, resident of Railway Quarter No.J/17/2,
Chakradharpur, P.O. & P.S. Chakradharpur, District- West Singhbhum
... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, S/o Late Ramdeo Mishra, resident of Railway
Quarter No.0/98/1, Porter Kholi, Ward No.11, P.O. & P.S.
Chakdradharpur, District- West Singhbhum ... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vijoy Kumar Sinha, A.P.P.
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Praveen Shankar Prasad, Advocate
-----
05/08.12.2025 Heard Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
Mr. Vijoy Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the State and Mr.
Praveen Shankar Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the complainant/
opposite party no.2.
2. This criminal revision petition has been filed challenging the judgment
dated 24.07.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class,
Chaibasa in Complaint Case No.14/2022 (T.R.No.125/2023), whereby, the
petitioner has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument
Act and he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and six months
and fine of Rs.9,80,000/- as compensation to be paid to the complainant as
per Section 143(1) (Proviso) N.I. Act read with Section 357(1)(3) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure within two months of passing of the sentence and in
default of payment of fine, the petitioner has been further sentenced to
undergo S.I. for two months and in non-payment of the compensation
amount within time, it was further ordered that the amount shall be recovered
under the provisions of Section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and
-1- Criminal Revision No. 575 of 2024
( 2025:JHHC:36698 )
the amount of Rs.25,000/- which has been paid by the petitioner to the
complainant at the time of mediation will be adjusted in the fine amount. The
petitioner has further challenged the judgment dated 11.03.2024 passed by
the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Criminal Appeal
No.98/2023, whereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been
dismissed and the judgment passed by the learned trial court has been
affirmed.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the matter
is arising out of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. He further
submits that now a good sense has prevailed between the parties and both
have compromised the matter. He then submits that I.A. No.2840 of 2025 has
been filed for joint compromise between the petitioner and complainant/
opposite party no.2. He next submits that in light of the compromise reached
between the parties, it has been settled that the petitioner will pay a sum of
Rs.7,25,000/- to the complainant. He also submits that the sum of
Rs.5,25,000/- has already been paid by the petitioner to the complainant. He
submits that in light of the compromise, the sum of Rs.10,000/- per month,
as rest of the amount, is being paid to the complainant and till date further
amount of Rs.80,000/- has been paid in light of the compromise. On these
grounds, he submits that the joint compromise petition may kindly be allowed
as the matter is compoundable in light of Section 147 of the Negotiable
Instrument Act.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that in light of the
joint compromise petition, it transpires that both the parties have
compromised the matter.
-2- Criminal Revision No. 575 of 2024
( 2025:JHHC:36698 )
5. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant, who is opposite party
no.2 herein accepts the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and submits that sum of Rs.5,25,000/- and further Rs.80,000/- has
been paid by the petitioner to the complaint and rest of the amount is being
paid by the petitioner per month. He further submits that in view of the
compromise and the amount is being paid, the complainant does not want to
proceed with the matter.
6. When the parties have compromised the matter and the Court is
satisfied regarding the genuineness of the settlement, the conviction of the
accused would not serve any purpose and it is required to be set-aside. A
Reference may be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of New Win Export and another v. A. Subramaniam,
reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1741. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said
judgment read as under:
"6. At this juncture, we would also like to reiterate a few
words regarding the principles of compounding of offences in
the context of NI Act. It is to be remembered that dishonour
of cheques is a regulatory offence which was made an
offence only in view of public 4interest so that the reliability
of these instruments can be ensured. A large number of cases
involving dishonour of cheques are pending before courts
which is a serious concern for our judicial system. Keeping in
mind that the 'compensatory aspect' of remedy shall have
priority over the 'punitive aspect', courts should encourage
compounding of offences under the NI Act if parties are
willing to do so. (See: Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal
H. (2010) 5 SCC 6631, Gimpex Private Limited v. Manoj Goel
(2022) 11 SCC 7052, Meters And Instruments Private Limited
And Anr. v. Kanchan Mehta (2018) 1 SCC 5603)
7. In Raj Reddy Kallem v. The State of Haryana &
Anr. [2024] 5 S.C.R 203, this Court followed the same
principles and quashed a conviction under the NI Act, by
invoking its powers under Article 142, even though the
complainant therein declined to give consent for
compounding, observing that the accused has sufficiently
compensated the complainant."
-3- Criminal Revision No. 575 of 2024
( 2025:JHHC:36698 )
7. In view of the above and considering the prayer made in the petition
and further, the matter is arising under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instrument Act and it is compoundable in light of Section 147 of the
Negotiable Instrument Act and both the parties have compromised the matter
and in view of that, the joint compromise petition is allowed.
8. Accordingly, I.A. No.2840 of 2025 is disposed of.
9. Considering the totality of the circumstances and compromise between
the parties, this criminal revision petition is allowed and the judgment dated
24.07.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chaibasa in
Complaint Case No.14/2022 (T.R.No.125/2023) and the judgment dated
11.03.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at
Chaibasa in Criminal Appeal No.98/2023 are, hereby, set-aside.
10. Accordingly, this criminal revision petition is allowed and disposed of.
11. Pending I.A., if any, is disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Dated: 8th December, 2025
Ajay/
Uploaded on
09/12/2025
-4- Criminal Revision No. 575 of 2024
