[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Abdul Mannan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 February, 2026
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
( 2026:JHHC:2877 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No. 713 of 2024
Abdul Mannan, aged about 54 years,S/o Late Abdul Jabbar, R/o
Kharikabad, P.O. Barwa Purv, P.S. Govindpur, Dist. Dhanbad
... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Syed Sahauddin Neshat, S/o Late Syed Rayajuddin Ahmad, R/o Millat
Colony, Wasseypur, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Bankmore, Dist. Dhanbad
... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Shweta Singh, A.P.P.
For O.P. No.2 : Ms. Kehkashan Afsheen, Advocate
-----
13/04.02.2026 Heard Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, Mrs. Shweta Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State and
Ms. Kehkashan Afsheen, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2.
2. This criminal revision petition has been preferred against the judgment
dated 30.04.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal
Appeal No.216 of 2023, whereby, the learned Court has been pleased to
dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 06.12.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
1st Class, Dhanbad in Complaint Case No.3969 of 2023, whereby, the learned
Court has been pleased to convict the petitioner under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instrument Act and the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo
S.I. for 1 year and 6 months and fine of Rs.5,50,000/-.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the matter
is arising under 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 and joint compromise petition has been filed
in the form of I.A. No.661 of 2026. He then submits that in terms of the
-1- Criminal Revision No. 713 of 2024
( 2026:JHHC:2877 )
compromise, entire compensation amount of Rs.5,50,000/- has been paid to
the opposite party no.2/complainant. He next submits that the matter is
compoundable under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and in
that view of the matter, this matter can be disposed of.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the compromise
is there. She further submits that the matter is arising under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instrument Act.
5. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2/complainant
accepts the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and she
submits that the said I.A. has been filed for joint compromise and the same
has been filed on affidavit of both the sides separately. She further submits
that total amount of compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- has already been
received by the complainant and now the complainant/opposite party no.2
does not want to proceed further in the matter.
6. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties
and considering that the matter is arising under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instrument Act, which is compoundable in light of Section 147 of the
Negotiable Instrument Act and both the parties have compromised the matter
and in that view of the matter, the said I.A., meant for joint compromise
petition is allowed and the case is allowed to be compounded between the
parties.
7. 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:
-2- Criminal Revision No. 713 of 2024
( 2026:JHHC:2877 )
"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."
8. In view of the above judgment and considering the compromise as
well as Section 147 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, the petitioner herein is
acquitted by setting-aside the judgment dated 30.04.2024 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No.216 of 2023 and the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.12.2023 passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in Complaint Case No.3969
of 2023.
9. The petitioner is, hereby, discharged from all sureties.
10. Accordingly, this criminal revision petition is allowed in above terms
and disposed of.
11. Pending I.A., if any, is disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Dated: 4th February, 2026
Ajay/
Uploaded on
05/02/2026
-3- Criminal Revision No. 713 of 2024
