Quashed

Arvind Kumar Das v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC14 Dec 2017Cr.Rev./1534/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an exemption from surrender under Rule 159 of JHC Rules due to a compromise. Consequently, the court quashed the conviction and sentence of six months imprisonment and compensation arising from a cheque bounce case where the disputed amount was returned.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner exempted from surrender; conviction, sentence and affirmation order dated 21.7.2017 quashed and set aside.

Arvind Kumar Das Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1534 of 2017

¶2

----------Arvind Kumar Das, Son of late Mahender Das @ Mahendra Das, Resident of K-2/6, Road No. 25, Telco Colony, P.O. & P.S. Telco, Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum .…..Petitioner Versus

¶3

The State of Jharkhand.

¶4

Tarun Kumar Singh, Son of late Upendra Singh, Resident of Barigora, Durga Maidan, P.O. Rahargora, P.S. Parsudih, Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum. ….Opposite Parties

¶5

Coram: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶6

----For the Petitioner : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate For the State : APP For O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate -----

¶7

I.A. No. 8418 of 2017

¶8

04/14.12.2017 Heard the parties.

¶9

In this application, the petitioner has prayed for exemption to surrender in terms of Rule 159 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules.

¶10

Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that matter has been compromised between the parties and the amount of Rs.40,000/-has already been received by the O.P. No. 2.

¶11

Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2, has accepted the factum of compromise.

¶12

In view of the aforesaid, therefore, the same being an exceptional circumstance, this application is allowed and the petitioner is exempted to surrender in terms of Rule 159 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules.

¶13

I.A. No.8418 of 2017 is disposed of.

¶14

Cr. Revision No. 1534 of 2017

¶15

This application has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 21.7.2017, passed in Cr. Appeal No. 77 of 2015, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Jamshedpur, whereby and whereunder judgement and order of conviction and sentence dated 15.5.2015, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Jamshedpur in C/1 Case No. 1406 of 2009 convicting the petitioner for the offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months as also to pay a compensation of Rs.60,000/- has been affirmed.

¶16

-2-

¶17

A complaint case was instituted, in which it was alleged that the petitioner had taken a loan of Rs.40,000/- and when a demand was made by the complainant for return of the said amount, a cheque of Rs.40,000/- was given by the appellant, which on presentation to the bank got dishonored due to insufficiency of fund and a legal notice was sent by the complainant which led to institution of Complaint Case No.1406 of 2009.

¶18

Upon conducting an enquiry, cognizance was taken for the offene under section 138 of N.I. Act and trial proceeded. Since the complainant had been able to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt, petitioner was convicted for the offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act and was sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months along with a compensation of Rs.60,000/-by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Jamshedpur by judgement dated 15.5.2015. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on 21.7.2017 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Jamshedpur.

¶19

The main crux of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is with respect to the fact that compromise has been effected between the parties and the amount as agreed upon to the tune of Rs.40,000/- has already been returned back to the O.P. No. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the compromise petition as well as receipt, which is a part of the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner.

¶20

Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2, has accepted the factum of compromise and has stated that he does not have any grievance against the petitioner since he has received the amount of Rs.40,000/-, which he had given as a loan to the petitioner.

¶21

In view of the compromise, which has been effected between the parties and since good relations have been restored and the grievance of the complainant has been redressed while allowing this application, the order dated 21.7.2017, passed in Cr. Appeal No. 77 of 2015, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Jamshedpur, whereby and whereunder judgement and order of conviction and sentence dated 15.5.2015, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Jamshedpur in C/1 Case No. 1406 of 2009 convicting the

¶22

-3-

¶23

petitioner for the offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months as also to pay a compensation of Rs.60,000/- has been affirmed, is quashed and set aside.

¶24

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)

¶25

Rakesh/--

Arvind Kumar Das v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Kumar Das 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

Gudda Rai and Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Dipak Kumar Bhagat Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Pallab Kumar Roy Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Rajesh Alias Durga Prasad Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Nishi Kant Vs The Union Of India Through C B I

Sakaldeo Munda Vs The State Of Jharkhand