[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Adityapur vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 February, 2026
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
2026:JHHC:2650
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No.374 of 2025
Santosh Kumar, aged about 56 Years, Son of Sri Rajendra Sharma,
Resident of House No.-132 of 2024, Road No.-12, Housing Colony,
Adityapur, P.O.-Adityapur, P.S.-Adityapur, District-Seraikela.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Yash Kamal Developers Pvt. Ltd. having its office at Yash Kamal
Complex, Bistupur, P.O and P.S.-Bistupur, Jamshedpur, represented by
its Director Shri Prabir P Patel, P.O. & P.S. Bistupur, District-East
Singhbhum. ... Opp. Parties
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kr. Pandey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shashi Kr. Verma, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate
------
6/02.02.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned
counsel appearing for the state and O.P. No.2.
2. This revision petition has been preferred for setting aside the
Judgment dated 30.11.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.234 of
2023 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, East Singhbhum,
Jamshedpur, whereby he has he has been pleased to dismiss the
appeal and affirmed the Judgment of learned Trial Court dated
27.9.2023 passed in C/1 Case No. 3408 of 2018, whereby the learned
Court has been pleased to convict the petitioner under section 138 of
N.I. Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment of 12
months along with a fine of Rs.1,15,000/- out of which, whole
amount has to be paid to the complainant as compensation under
section 357(3) of CrPC and in default of payment of fine, the
petitioner has been further directed to undergo S.I. for 01 month.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
2026:JHHC:2650
matter is arising out of section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and
the complaint case was filed for dishonour of cheque of Rs.31,750/-
and another cheque amount of Rs.68,000/- He submits that now a
good sense has been prevailed between the parties and the matter has
been compromised and it has been settled on the payment of
Rs.75,000/- with regard to both the cheques.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits
that he has come forward with the revalidated bank draft of Rs.
75,000/- in the name of the complainant-company. In course of the
proceeding, he has handed over the said bank draft to the learned
counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 and the learned
counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 will hand over the
said bank draft to the complainant-opposite party No.2.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits
that the matter is compoundable in light of section 147 of the
Negotiable Instrument Act.
6. Learned Counsel appearing for the State submits that it appears
that the matter is arising out of section 138 of Negotiable Instrument
Act.
7. Learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2-
complainant accepts the submissions of the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner. He submits that the compromise has
already been made and Rs.75,000/- for both the cheque amount has
been handed over to him in course of the proceeding that will be
handed over by him to the opposite party No. 2-complainant. He
2026:JHHC:2650
submits that he has got instructions that the opposite party No. 2 does
not want to proceed further in the matter.
8. In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties and considering that the matter is arising out of section 138 of
Negotiable Instrument Act, which is compoundable under section
147 of the said Act and the compromise has already been made.
9. As such this case is allowed to be compounded between the
parties.
10. Reference may be made to the case of New Win Export and
another Vs. A. Subramaniam reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC
1741, wherein it is held in Para 6 and 7, which 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 interest 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
663, Gimpex Private Limited v. Manoj Goel (2022) 11 SCC
7052, Meters And Instruments Private Limited v. Kanchan
Mehta (2018) 1 SCC 5602)
7. In Raj Reddy Kallem v. The State of Haryana [2024] 5
SCR 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."
2026:JHHC:2650
11. In the light of the above facts and the judgment, the petitioner is
hereby acquitted by setting aside the Judgment dated 30.11.2024
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 234 of 2023 by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-III, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur and the Judgment
of the learned Trial Court dated 27.9.2023 passed in C/1 Case No.
3408 of 2018.
12. This criminal revision petition is allowed in the above terms and
disposed of. Pending petitions, if any, are also disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
02.02.2026
R.Kumar
