Allowed

Anil Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC20 Sept 2021Cr.Rev./279/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a criminal revision application against a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court allowed the reliefs sought in pending interlocutory applications, condoned delay, and quashed the conviction and sentence due to a joint compromise and full payment of compensation by the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The judgment of conviction and sentence under Section 138 NI Act were set aside; amounts deposited were directed to be released to the opposite party; petitioner was directed to be released from jail.

Anil Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Rev. No. 279 of 2020

¶3

Anil Prasad, aged about 50 years, son of Late Ramswaroop Prasad, resident of North Sheopuri, Okni No.2, P.O.- Hazaribag, P.S.- Sadar, District- Hazaribag … … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Sachidanand Singh @ Sachchida Nand Singh, son of late Ram Pratap Singh, resident of Hirabag Chowk, Matwari, P.O. Hazaribag, P.S. Sadar, District Hazaribag

¶7

…… Opposite Parties

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶9

For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Hemant Kr. Shikarwar, Adv. For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, A.P.P.

¶10

¶11

Through Video Conferencing

¶12

05/20.09.2021 I.A. No.2585 of 2020

¶13

1. This interlocutory application has been filed for condonation of the delay of 159 days caused in filing the present revision application.

¶14

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reason for the delay in filing the present criminal revision application is mentioned in Para- 6 to 9 of the interlocutory application and therefore, the delay may be condoned for the ends of justice.

¶15

3. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have no serious objection, so far as condonation of delay is concerned.

¶16

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and being satisfied with the explanation given and the cause shown by the petitioner, the delay in filing the present criminal revision application is condoned.

¶17

5. Accordingly, I.A. No. 2585 of 2020 is allowed.

¶18

I.A. No.3001 of 2021, I.A. No.4772 of 2021 and I.A. No.4664 of

¶19

2021

¶20

¶21

6. I.A. No.3001 of 2021 has been filed by way of joint compromise petition. I.A. No.4664 of 2021 has been filed for withdrawing I.A. No.3001 of 2021 alongwith a prayer to withdraw Vakalatnama executed by the Opposite Party No.2 in favour of Mr. Brij Nandan Kumar, the learned Advocate. It appears that same prayers have also been made in I.A. No. 4772 of 2021.

¶22

7. It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that opposite party no.2 has inadvertently executed 2^nd Vakalatnama in favour of another counsel and directed him to file a joint compromise petition being I.A. No.3001 of 2021 and subsequently, he realized that Vakalatnama was already issued to the present counsel for the opposite party no.2. In such circumstances, I.A. No.4664 of 2021 has been filed for withdrawal of I.A. No.3001 of 2021.

¶23

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties have no serious objection in connection with the prayer made in I.A. No.4664 of 2021 for withdrawal of I.A. No.3001 of 2021. Accordingly, I.A. No.4664 of 2021 is allowed and I.A. No.3001 of 2021 stands dismissed as withdrawn. So far as I.A no. 4772 of 2021 is concerned, it has the same prayer as that of I.A. No.4664 of 2021 and accordingly the same is also disposed of.

¶24

I.A. No.4726 of 2021 and I.A. No.5153 of 2021

¶25

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that another interlocutory application being I.A. No.4726 of 2021 has been filed by way of joint compromise petition through the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha and through the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 Mr. Hemant Kumar Shikarwar.

¶26

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in view of the compromise entered into between the parties, I.A. No.5153 of 2021 has been filed wherein a prayer has

¶27

¶28

been made to release the petitioner from jail custody, who has been arrested on 07.09.2021.

¶29

11. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties both these interlocutory applications are taken up together alongwith the main criminal revision petition. 12. The petitioner stands convicted for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 (three) months and was also directed to make payment of Rs.5,80,000/as compensation under Section 357 (3) of Cr.P.C. The petitioner was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Hazaribag, vide Judgment dated 04.04.2018 in Complaint Case No.2466 of 2013 corresponding to T.R. No.0439 of 2018, against which the appeal preferred by the petitioner being Criminal Appeal No.71 of 2018 was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – XIV, Hazaribag vide Judgment dated 28.06.2019 and thereafter, the present criminal revision application has been filed.

¶30

13. It has been submitted that the present criminal revision application was taken up on 19.03.2020 and the learned counsel for the petitioner on instruction of the petitioner had pleaded that he is ready to deposit the fine amount before the learned court below in installments and first installment of Rs.1,00,000/- was to be deposited at the time of furnishing bail bond and remaining amount was to be deposited by 30.04.2020. The petitioner was granted provisional bail vide order dated 19.03.2020 and the matter was directed to be posted on 04.05.2020 which was modified vide order dated 04.05.2020 with modification of the payment schedule and the provisional bail was extended till 21.10.2020 and subsequently, the petitioner was directed to surrender immediately vide order dated 4.11.2020 as the bail bond furnished by the petitioner was already cancelled by the learned court below on account of non-

¶31

¶32

deposit of the amount as per schedule. The notice was issued upon opposite party no.2 and on receiving notice, the opposite party no.2 appeared through his counsel.

¶33

14. It has been jointly submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 that during the pendency of the present case, the parties have settled their dispute outside the Court. It has also been submitted that as per the direction of this Court, the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- before the learned court below on 03.04.2020 and the remaining amount of Rs.4,80,000/- has been directly given to the opposite party no.2, whose details are mentioned in I.A. No.4726 of 2021. It has been jointly submitted by the learned counsels that the entire amount of Rs.5,80,000/- has been paid to the opposite party no.2, out of which Rs.1,00,000/- has been deposited before the learned court below and the remaining amount has been directly paid to the opposite party no.2. It is submitted that by intervention of the well-wishers, the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 have amicably settled the dispute outside the Court and the opposite party no.2 has no objection, if the criminal revision preferred by the petitioner is allowed on the basis of the joint compromise petition.

¶34

15. The learned counsel for the State has no objection to the prayer made jointly by the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2.

¶35

16. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case and the nature of the offence involved in the present case and also the fact that the petitioner and opposite party no.2 have settled their dispute outside the Court and have filed joint compromise petition, the present criminal revision application is disposed of in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties in order to meet the ends of justice and secure peace between the parties. Consequently, the Judgment of conviction

¶36

¶37

and the order of sentence dated 04.04.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Hazaribag in Complaint Case No.2466 of 2013 corresponding to T.R. No.439 of 2018 against the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and the Judgment dated 28.06.2019 passed by learned Additional Session Judge- XIV, Hazaribag in Criminal Appeal No.71 of 2018 affirming the conviction and sentence of the petitioner are set aside.

¶38

17. It further appears that the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- before the learned court below and has directly paid an amount of Rs.4,80,000/- to the opposite party no.2. Accordingly, the amount deposited by the petitioner amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- before the learned court below is directed to be released in favour of the opposite party no.2 upon due identification.

¶39

18. So far as I.A. No.5153 of 2021 is concerned, the criminal revision having been disposed of in terms of the compromise, the petitioner is directed to be released from jail immediately, if the petitioner is not wanted in any other case.

¶40

19. Accordingly, I.A. No.4726 of 2021 and I.A. No.5153 of 2021 are hereby allowed with the aforesaid terms.

¶41

20. Consequently, this Criminal Revision Application is disposed of.

¶42

21. Let the lower court records be sent back to the court concerned.

¶43

22. Let this order be communicated to the learned court below through E-mail/FAX.

¶44

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶45

Saurav/

Anil Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Shiv Prasad Choubey Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Gorka Paswan and Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Khaitu Ansari and Another Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gour Rana Vs State of Jharkhand

Uma Shankar Poddar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nepal Hembram Vs the State of Jharkhand