Allowed

Raj Kumar Jaiswal v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC26 Feb 2018Cr.Rev./110/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand allowed an Interlocutory Application seeking exemption from surrender under Rule 159 of Jharkhand HC Rules due to a settlement. Consequently, the criminal conviction and sentence for cheque dishonour under Section 138 NI Act, affirmed by the Judicial Commissioner, were set aside.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner exempted from surrender; impugned judgment of conviction and sentence under Section 138 NI Act set aside.

Raj Kumar Jaiswal Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Revision No. 110 of 2017

¶3

¶4

Raj Kumar Jaiswal, son of Late Chandrika Prasad Sao, resident of 601”B” Koyla Vihar 'Sanskriti', Kanke Road, P.O. and P.S. Gonda, District Ranchi

¶5

… … Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Ramesh Prasad son of Late Mino Sao, resident of Upper Bazar, Jalan Road, P.S. Kotwali, P.O. G.P.O., District Ranchi … … Opp. Party

¶9

--- : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Manoj Kumar No. 2, Advocate --- I.A. No. 1269 of 2018

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶11

07/26.02.2018 Heard Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P., for the State and Mr. Manoj Kumar No. 2, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2.

¶12

This application has been preferred by the petitioner for exempting to surrender in terms of Rule 159 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules in view of the fact that compromise has been effected and the amount of Rs. 5,50,000/has already been received by the opposite party no. 2.

¶13

Both the learned counsels have relied upon the Interlocutory Application No. 1287 of 2018 which is by way of a joint compromise petition. Since the matter has been compromised between the parties and the grievance of the opposite party no. 2 has been redressed the same being an exceptional circumstance, the petitioner is exempted to surrender in terms of Rule 159 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules.

¶14

I.A. No. 1269 of 2018 stands disposed of.

¶15

Cr. Revision No. 110 of 2017

¶16

The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 10.01.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 2016 by which the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 17.03.2016 passed in Complaint Case No. 2269 of 2012 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months as also to pay a compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- has been affirmed.

¶17

A complaint case was instituted with an allegation that the petitioner has been given a friendly loan by the complainant and the petitioner had

¶18

-2-

¶19

assured to return the loan within a month. It has been alleged that two cheques were issued amounting to Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 5,50,000/respectively which on being presented were dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds. A legal notice was served upon the petitioner. Since in spite of expiry of the statutory period the amount was not returned, the complainant had instituted a complaint case being Complaint Case No. 2269 of 2012 and cognizance was taken under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and in course of trial since the complainant was able to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubts the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced accordingly. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence was subsequently affirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 2016 by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi.

¶20

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the matter has been compromised between the parties and in support of his contention he has referred to I.A. No. 1287 of 2018.

¶21

Mr. Manoj Kumar No. 2, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2, has accepted the factum of compromise and has stated that he does not have any grievance against the petitioner.

¶22

Perusal of I.A. No. 1287 of 2018 reveals that the settlement has been entered into and the amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- has been returned back to the opposite party no. 2 towards full and final settlement of the dues of the opposite party no. 2.

¶23

In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, this application stands allowed and the impugned judgment dated 10.01.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 2016 and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 17.03.2016 passed in Complaint Case No. 2269 of 2012 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi are, hereby, set aside.

¶24

Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

¶25

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶26

Umesh/-

Raj Kumar Jaiswal v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Jaiswal 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

Rahul Kumar Alias Rahul Raja Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Ajay Kumar Rai and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Sadhna Devi Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Suraj Paswan Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Kamlesh Yadav And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Manjusree Mazumdar Vs the State of Jharkhand