Orissa High Court
Sandhya Rani Sahu vs Padmashree Sahu @ Khuntia ... Opposite ... on 3 May, 2025
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.168 of 2025
(In the matter of application Under Section 397/401 of
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 corresponding to Section
438/442 of the BNSS Act, 2023).
Sandhya Rani Sahu ... Petitioner
-versus-
Padmashree Sahu @ Khuntia ... Opposite Party
For Petitioner : Ms. I. Tripathy, Advocate
For Opposite Party : Ms. M. Jesthi, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
F DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:03.05.2025(ORAL)
G. Satapathy, J.
1. This Criminal Revision U/Ss.438/442 of the
BNSS by the revision-petitioner is directed against the
conviction and sentence of the petitioner as recorded
by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate
(Sadar), Cuttack vide judgment dated 25.05.2022
passed in 1CC Case Nos.248 of 2018 and 819 of 2018
and affirmed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions
Judge, Cuttack by the impugned judgment dated
20.02.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.51 of 2022.
2. The revision-petitioner in this case has
accordingly being convicted for commission of offence
punishable U/S.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (in
short, "the NI Act") has been sentenced to undergo
Simple Imprisonment for a period of two years with
payment of compensation of Rs.22,00,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Two Lakhs) and in default whereof, to undergo
SI for a further period of three months.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the OP-
complainant was in search of a land and the petitioner
was searching for a buyer to sell her land as she was in
urgent need of money for her treatment and for better
education of her son. While the matter stood thus, both
the parties came in contact with each other and agreed
for sale and purchase of the land of the petitioner.
Accordingly, after due agreement, the sale of the land
was finalized and in lieu of the same, the OP had paid
an amount of Rs.19,15,000/- through account transfer
and in cash. On the date of registration, when the
complainant came to know at Sub-Registrar Office,
Cuttack that the said land cannot be registered in her
name as all the transactions over the said land had
been blocked by the Sales Tax Department, the
petitioner decided to refund the entire money by way of
an agreement and accordingly, refunded an amount of
Rs.7,95,000/- to the OP. However, the petitioner issued
to the OP two cheques bearing No.110242 dated
20.01.2018 amounting to Rs.6,00,000/- and another
bearing No.110243 dated 25.06.2018 amounting to
Rs.5,20,000/- both drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad,
Biju Pattnaik Square Branch, Cuttack for discharge of
her entire liability. Accordingly, when the cheques on
presentation on different dates were returned unpaid
being dishonoured, the OP issued the demand notices
to the petitioner for dishonour of each cheque within
the time provided under NI Act and when the petitioner
did not pay the cheque amount for each cheque, the OP
instituted two complaints for two cheques resulting in
trial of two complaints in 1CC Case Nos.248 of 2018
and 819 of 2018 analogously, but the petitioner was
not only found convicted and sentenced in the aforesaid
complaint cases, but also her conviction and sentence
were confirmed in the appeal resulting in present
criminal revision.
3.1. After persuasion of the learned counsel for
the parties, they agreed for compromise in the matter.
Accordingly, the petitioner and OP-cum-complainant
being identified by their respective counsels are present
before this Court today to record compromise in the
matter, but they had earlier filed a joint affidavit
admitting compromise between them. Further, this
Court has the privilege to go through the joint
compromise affidavit recording therein about
compromise in the matter. Further, OP on being asked
expressed that she is not interested to proceed against
the petitioner and she also acknowledges to have
already received an amount of Rs.9,80,000/- out of the
cheque amount of Rs.11,22,000/-. Further, the joint
compromise affidavit was not only signed by the
parties, but also by their learned counsels who
acknowledged the same in the Court. It is, accordingly,
prayed by the parties to allow compromise.
4. It is no more res integra that the offence
U/S.138 of the NI Act is compoundable in nature and,
thereby, according permission to compromise is
permissible. Further, not only the petitioner and OP are
present in the Court, but also they have signed on the
compromise affidavit and they expressed their
satisfaction over compromise in the matter without any
influence or coercion. In the fitness of things and taking
into account the compromise affidavit filed by both the
parties and they being present in person being
identified by their respective counsels have expressed
their satisfaction over the compromise and taking into
account the positive attitude of the parties in coming
forward to close the litigation, this Court considers it in
the interest of justice to allow the parties to
compromise the case and, accordingly, the offence is
compounded which is permissible U/S. 147 of NI Act.
5. In the result, the criminal revision stands
allowed on compromise. Consequently, the impugned
judgment dated 25.05.2022 passed by learned
S.D.J.M. (S), Cuttack in 1CC Case Nos.248 of 2018 and
819 of 2018 and the impugned judgment dated
20.02.2025 passed by the learned 3rd Addl. Sessions
Judge, Cuttack in Crl. Appeal No.51 of 2022 are,
hereby, set aside. As a necessary corollary, the
revision-petitioner is acquitted of the charge.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 3rd day of May, 2025/S.Sasmal
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 05-May-2025 11:12:18
