Debraj Panda vs State Of Odisha & Another .... Opposite ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 7742 Ori

Orissa High Court

Debraj Panda vs State Of Odisha & Another .... Opposite ... on 1 September, 2025

Author: R.K. Pattanaik

Bench: R.K. Pattanaik

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                             CRLREV No.271 of 2024

            Debraj Panda                          ....           Petitioner
                                            Mr. Adhiraj Mohanty, Advocate
                                        -Versus-
            State of Odisha & another               ....    Opposite Parties
                                                         Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA

                      CORAM:
                      MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
                                       ORDER

01.09.2025 Order No.

01. 1. Heard Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and opposite party No.2-informant.

2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned judgment in Criminal Appeal No.06/03 of 2021- 2013 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Vigilance), Keonjhar as at Annexure-1.

3. In course of hearing, it is informed to the Court that settlement has been reached at between the parties. In fact, opposite party No.2 acknowledges the settlement having been arrived at by him with the petitioner in the meantime. Opposite party No.2 is requested to file a memo stating therein the fact of compromise as has been claimed by the petitioner.

4. The petitioner has been convicted for an offence under Section 138 N.I. Act and sentenced to undergo S.I. for three

months and to pay a compensation of Rs.18,000/- to opposite party No.2 with a default sentence.

5. The compromise is claimed by both the parties. On being asked, opposite party No.2 informs the Court that the compensation amount has been received by him from the petitioner in view of settlement between them.

6. Having regard to the aforesaid development and for the fact that the offence under Section 138 N.I. Act is compoundable in nature, this Court, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in B.V. Seshaiah Vrs. The State of Telengana & another (2023) 2 S.C.R. 293, is of the view that the order of conviction and sentence is required to be set aside so as to settle the matter for all times to come. In fact, in the said decision, in an identical case involving an offence under Section 138 N.I. Act, the Apex Court set aside the order of conviction allowing the parties to settle the dispute in terms of Memorandum of Understanding. Though no joint affidavit is filed by the parties but the fact of compromise is pleaded on record, considering such pleading and presence of opposite party No.2 admitting the fact of compromise, regard being had to the settled position of law and as the offence under Section 138 N.I. Act is compoundable, this Court reiterates the view that the order of conviction and sentence should be set aside.

7. Accordingly, it is ordered.

8. In the result, the revision stands allowed with the order of conviction and sentence so also the judgment in Criminal

Appeal No.06-03 of 2021-2013 set aside on account of compromise reached at between the parties.

9. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Alok