Allowed

Kanika Banerjee v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC18 Jul 2016Cr.Rev./571/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed interim prayer exempting petitioner from surrender due to compromise, then allowed main revision. Conviction under Section 138 NI Act for cheque dishonour was set aside after parties settled and drafts totalling Rs. 2.8 lakh were handed over.

What did the court decide?

Cr. Revision No. 571/2016 allowed; orders of trial court dated 27.05.2015 and appellate court dated 26.02.2016 set aside; petitioner exempted from surrender.

Kanika Banerjee Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 571 of 2016

Kanika Banerjee

… … Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand & Anr. … ... Opposite Parties

¶7

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶9

For the Petitioner : Mr. Syed Nausad Ahmed, Advocate For the O. P. No. 2 : Mr. D. K. Karmakar, Advocate

¶10

I.A. No. 2969 of 2016

¶11

05/18.07.2016 Heard Mr. Syed Nausad Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. D. K. Karmakar, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2.

¶12

This interlocutory application has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 159 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules for exemption of surrender.

¶13

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter has been compromised between the parties and in fact an amount of Rs. 2,80,000/- which was the disputed amount has been brought, by way of a drafts, by the learned counsel for the petitioner to be handed over to the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

¶14

Mr. D. K. Karmakar, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2, submits that he does not have any objection for exempting the petitioner from surrender as the matter has been compromised between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2.

¶15

In view of the aforesaid fact, this application is allowed and the petitioner is exempted to surrender under Section 159 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules.

¶16

I. A. No. 2969 of 2016 is allowed and disposed of.

¶17

Cr. Revision No. 571 of 2016

¶18

This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 26.02.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner – III, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 2015 by which the judgment and order of conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been upheld.

¶19

-2-

¶20

It appears that a complaint case was instituted in which it was alleged that the complainant had given an amount of Rs. 4,01,000/- to the petitioner in 14.10.2011 to 10.08.2012 for the purpose of study of her son wherein after two cheques were issued to the complainant as security. It is also alleged that in course of time Rs. 1,12,000/- was paid by the petitioner to the complainant out of the amount taken as loan. However, on presentation of the cheques before the bank the same got dishonored leading to institution of the complaint case.

¶21

In the trial the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for eight months and to make payment of compensation of Rs. 2,80,000/-. The appeal which was preferred by the petitioner being Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 2015 also got dismissed on 26.02.2016.

¶22

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the appeal the matter has been compromised and the said fact has been mentioned at Paragraph – 8 of the appellate court’s judgment. Learned counsel, however, submits that after the appeal was dismissed a draft amounting to Rs. 2,80,000/was got prepared and which is in possession of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It has been submitted that admittedly the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 shared good relationship which has subsequently been restored and in such circumstance, the orders passed by the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court be set aside on the basis of compromise.

¶23

Mr. D. K. Karmakar, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2, has fairly submitted that the matter has been compromised between the parties and he has no objection if the judgment and order of conviction and sentence is set aside.

¶24

During the hearing of this application, Mr. Syed Nausad Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner has handed over four drafts bearing draft no. 611161, 611158, 611177 and 611159 amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 65,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively to Mr. D. K. Karmakar, learned counsel appearing for the opposite

¶25

-3-

¶26

party no. 2 who in turn has handed over the same to the complainant namely Smt. Madhumita Nag Choudhary who is present in person.

¶27

It appears that the relationship of the parties were strained prior to institution of the complaint case but subsequently good sense has prevailed and the matter has been settled which resulted in making payment of Rs. 2,80,000/- to the complainant by the petitioner.

¶28

In such circumstances, therefore, on the basis of the compromise so arrived at, this application is allowed and the order dated 27.05.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 483 of 2013 as well as the judgment dated 26.02.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner – III, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 2015 is, hereby, set aside.

¶29

Let the photocopy of the drafts which has been handed over to the opposite party no. 2 be kept on the record.

¶30

Umesh/-

Kanika Banerjee v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanika Banerjee v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhandari Dinesh Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Pramila Soren Vs the State of Jharkhand

Suman Devi And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Kunal Alias Kunal Kumar Mahto Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Chandan Kumar Gupta through His Father Upendra Sah Vs the State of Jharkhand

P S Natrajan Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Chief Secretary And Anr.