Orissa High Court
Rabindranath Sahoo vs State Of Odisha & Another .... Opposite ... on 1 July, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.80 of 2024
Rabindranath Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. B. Jena, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha & another .... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA
Mr. S. Panda, Advocate
(O.P. No.2)
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
01.07.2025
Order No.
04. 1. Heard Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.
Panda, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and Mr. Ray,
learned AGA for the State.
2. Instant revision petition is filed by the petitioner
challenging the impugned judgment in Criminal Appeal No.20
of 2012 of learned Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur on the
grounds stated therein.
3. The decision of learned S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur in
I.C.C. No.13 of 2011 stood confirmed in Criminal Appeal vide
Annexure-2.
4. In course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this
Court that there has been a compromise between the petitioner
and opposite party No.2 and in that connection, an affidavit has
been filed by opposite party No.2, namely, the complainant.
The affidavit filed today in Court is accepted and taken on
record.
5. Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
in view of compromise on account of settlement reached at
between the parties, the order of conviction dated 2nd March,
2012 in I.C.C. No.13 of 2011 confirmed in Criminal Appeal
No.20 of 2012 is required to be set aside as the offence under
Section 138 of N.I. Act is compoundable in nature.
6. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for opposite party No.2, on
instructions received, acknowledges the compromise reached at
by the parties and refers to Section 147 of the N.I. Act.
7. Offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act is compoundable
in view of Section 147 of the N.I. Act and since compromise
between the parties is pleaded on record with the affidavit filed
today, it is submitted that the order of conviction is required to
be set aside in the interest of justice.
8. A decision of the Apex Court in B V Seshaiah Vrs.
The State of Telangana & another in Criminal Appeal
No.284 of 2023 is referred to by learned counsel for the
respective parties and it is contended that the order of
conviction by the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur
deserves to be set aside in view of such settlement arrived at.
9. In the decision (supra), the Apex Court held and
observed that the settlement between the parties is nothing but
compounding of the offence. It is further held and concluded
therein that the parties entered into by an agreement, the terms
and conditions of the settlement binds them to settle the dispute
amicably referring to its earlier decision in M/s Meters and
Instruments Private Limited and another Vrs. Kanchan
Mehta (2018) 1 SCC 560 and as a consequence, the order of
conviction is to be set aside. In view of the above legal position
and Section 147 of N.I. Act for the offence under Section 138
of N.I. Act to be compoundable in nature, this Court, in view of
the affidavit filed today stating therein about the settlement, is
of the conclusion that the order of conviction in I.C.C. Case
No. 13 of 2011 deserves to be set aside to set at rest the dispute
between the petitioner and opposite party No.2.
10. Accordingly, it is ordered.
11. In the result, the revision stands allowed. As a
necessary corollary and for the reasons stated hereinbefore, the
order of conviction and sentence in I.C.C. No. 13 of 2011 is
hereby set aside.
12. In the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs.
13. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Signature
Alok Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT
