Mahesh Mehta vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 7422 Jhar

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 7422 Jhar
Judgement Date : 2 December, 2025

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Mahesh Mehta vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 December, 2025

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

                                                                              ( 2025:JHHC:36007 )




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                          Criminal Revision No. 1152 of 2025
                  Mahesh Mehta, aged about 39 years, son of Horil Mahto, resident of
                  Village-Ghagra, P.O. & P.S. Daru, District- Hazaribagh
                                                                    ... Petitioner
                                         -Versus-
            1.   The State of Jharkhand
            2.   Dev Narayan Prasad, son of Gaundari Mahto, aged about 48 years,
                 resident of Village- Badasi, P.O. Mifassil, P.S. Jagdishpur, District-
                 Hazaribagh                                         ... Opposite Parties
                                             -----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

-----

            For the Petitioner         : Mr. Gautam Kumar Pandey, Advocate
            For the State              : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P.
            For O.P. No.2              : Mr. Anshuman Mishra, Advocate
                                             -----
03/02.12.2025      I.A. No.15802 of 2025 has been filed for condonation of delay of 1091

days in filing the present criminal revision petition.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in arranging

the money and compromising the matter, such delay has occurred and in view

of that, the delay may kindly be condoned.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the State and opposite party no.2 have

got no serious objection if the delay is condoned.

4. Considering the nature of the case and further considering that the

compromise has taken place and for the reasons assigned in the said I.A., the

delay of 1091 days in filing the present criminal revision petition is, hereby,

condoned.

5. Accordingly, I.A. No.15802 of 2025 is allowed and disposed of.

6. Heard Mr. Gautam Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, Mrs. Ruby Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the State and

Mr. Anshuman Mishra, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2.

7. This criminal revision petition has been filed for setting-aside the

-1- Criminal Revision No. 1152 of 2025 ( 2025:JHHC:36007 )

judgment dated 12.08.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,

Hazaribagh in Criminal Appeal No.41 of 2019, whereby, the learned Sessions

Judge has been pleased to dismiss the appeal and affirmed the judgment of

the learned trial court. The further prayer is made for setting-aside the

judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.03.2019 passed by

the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh in Complaint Case No.

98 of 2016, T.R. No.1236 of 2019, whereby, the petitioner has been convicted

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and he has been

sentenced to undergo R.I. for three months and to pay compensation of

Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant/ opposite party no.2.

8. 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 the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I.

for three months and to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the

complainant/opposite party no.2. He then submits that the said judgment was

challenged by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal

Appeal No.41 of 2019, which has been dismissed vide judgment dated

12.08.2022. He next submits that now a good sense has prevailed between

the petitioner and complainant and they have compromised the matter and

for that, I.A. No.15809 of 2025 has been filed in the form of joint compromise

petition. He also submits that in terms of the judgment of the learned trial

court, the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation has already been paid to

the complainant/opposite party no.2 by the petitioner and in view of that, this

matter may kindly be disposed of. He next submits that this matter is

compoundable in light of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

                                -2-                  Criminal Revision No. 1152 of 2025
                                                                       ( 2025:JHHC:36007 )

9. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that it appears that

the compromise is there between the parties.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant/opposite party no.2

submits that the joint compromise petition has been filed, which has been

affidavited by both the sides separately. He further submits that the

complainant/opposite party no.2 has already received the compensation

amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and he is not willing to further pursue the matter

and in view of that, this matter can be disposed of.

11. In view of the above facts and considering the nature of the claim, it

transpires that the case is compoundable under Section 147 of the Negotiable

Instrument Act and, as such, the prayer made in I.A. No.15809 of 2025 is

allowed and the same stands disposed of.