Jharkhand High Court
Shit Narayan Mahto @ Sit Narayan Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 October, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
[2025:JHHC:31231]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 517 of 2024
Shit Narayan Mahto @ Sit Narayan Mahto, aged
about 46 years, son of Late Dhaneshwar Mahto,
resident of Village-Masanjore, P.O.-Mathurapur,
P.S.-Jasidih, District-Deoghar.
..... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Jugal Yadav @ Yugal Yadav, son of Late
Rambilash Yadav, resident of Kalipur Town,
Madhupur, P.O. and P.S.-Madhupur, District-
Deoghar.
..... ... Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Deo, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Ms. Kehkashan Afsheen, Advocate.
------
07/ 09.10.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned
A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this
revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated
27.02.2024, passed in Criminal Appeal no. 18 of 2023 by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-I, Madhupur, whereby the learned appellate
court has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and affirmed the judgment
of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.02.2023 passed by the
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur, in connection
with Complaint Case No. 215 of 2008, whereby, the petitioner has been
sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.
1,40,000/- for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act with the default
clause that in default of payment of fine amount, the petitioner shall
further undergo S.I. for six months.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this
case is arising out of Section 138 of NI Act and in the trial, the learned
[2025:JHHC:31231]
trial court has convicted the petitioner as prayed in the revision petition,
which has been affirmed by the learned appellate court. He further submits
that now the good sense has prevailed between the parties and the matter
has been compromised between them. He next submits that the petitioner
has already paid Rs. 1,40,000/- in the name of complainant-O.P. No. 2
Jugal Yadav @ Yugal Yadav by way of demand draft bearing D.D. No.
695037 dated 02.09.2025 of the State Bank of India, Madhupur Branch,
which has been duly received by the complainant on 10.09.2025 in
presence of the Mediator of the Jharkhand High Court Legal Service
Authority premises at Ranchi, as well as the counsel of the O.P. No. 2 and
counsel of the O.P. No. 2 has also identified the signature of the
complainant-O.P. No. 2. To buttress his argument, he refers to Annexure-5
of the supplementary affidavit, which is the photocopy of the
aforementioned demand draft, which has been duly received by the
complainant saying that he has received the said demand draft. He then
submits that in view of the compromise, the matter can be compounded
and he refers to Section 147 of the NI Act and submits that the petitioner
may kindly be exonerated.
4. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State submits that the matter
is arising out of Section 138 of NI Act. He further submits that from the
supplementary affidavit, it transpires that the compromise has taken place
between the petitioner and the complainant-O.P. No. 2.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 accepts the
submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. She submits
that the O.P. No. 2 has already received the aforementioned demand draft
of Rs. 1,40,000/- and she also confirmed Annexure-5 of the supplementary
affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. She further submits that matter
can be disposed of, as it is compoundable in nature in view of Section 147
of the NI Act.
6. From the records, it transpires that the matter is arising out of
[2025:JHHC:31231]
Section 138 of the NI Act and in light of supplementary affidavit filed on
behalf of the petitioner, it further transpires that the demand draft of Rs.
1,40,000/- has been received by the complainant and signature of the O.P.
No. 2 is there on the photo copy of the aforementioned demand draft.
Further the case is compoundable in nature in light of Section 147 of the
NI Act.
7. In view of the above, this court is, hereby, allowed the
compounding of the case between the parties, since the matter has already
been compromised between the parties. As such, the judgment dated
27.02.2024, passed in Criminal Appeal no. 18 of 2023 by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-I, Madhupur and the judgment dated
27.02.2023 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Madhupur, in connection with Complaint Case No. 215 of 2008, are
hereby, set aside. The petitioner is exonerated from all the liabilities.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that I.A.
No. 12231 of 2024 has been filed for exemption from surrender and in
para-10 thereof, it has been disclosed that pursuant to the compliance of
the direction of the order dated 30.01.2010 passed in A.B.A. No. 63 of
2010, the petitioner has deposited two FDRs, bearing numbers-230535
dated 29.01.2010 of Rs. 40,000/- and 230536 dated 29.01.2010 of Rs.
30,000/- of the Vananchal Gramin Bank, Jasidih in the name of the
petitioner and receipt of that was produced before the learned ACJM,
Madhupur and thereafter the petitioner was released on anticipatory bail,
in connection with Complaint Case No. 215 of 2008. He submits that the
said FDRs of Rs. 70,000/- was deposited at the time of furnishing of the
bail bond, as per the direction of the High Court, but the learned trial court
as well as the learned appellate court has not considered the same and
passed the order against the petitioner.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
since the compromise has taken place between the petitioner and the
[2025:JHHC:31231]
complainant-O.P. No. 2 and the petitioner has already paid Rs. 1,40,000/-,
which has been accepted by the learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No.
2, as such, the petitioner may kindly be allowed to withdraw the
aforementioned FDRs, which has been deposited in the Vananchal
Gramin Bank, Jasidih.
10. In view of his such submission, prayer of the petitioner to
withdraw the two FDRs, bearing numbers-230535 dated 29.01.2010 of Rs.
40,000/- and 230536 dated 29.01.2010 of Rs. 30,000/- of the Vananchal
Gramin Bank, Jasidih in the name of the petitioner, which have been
deposited in that bank is hereby allowed. The petitioner shall be entitled
to withdraw the said deposited amount.
11. This revision petition is disposed of. Pending I.A., if any,
stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Dated:-09.10.2025
Amitesh/-
