Allowed

Swagat Adhikari v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC24 Jun 2021Cr.Rev./903/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the revision and exempted the petitioner from surrender by accepting a joint compromise petition. The convicted judgments under the Negotiable Instruments Act were quashed, and the petitioner was acquitted.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgments quashed and set aside; petitioner acquitted; I.A. No.190 of 2021 allowing exemption from surrender allowed; I.A. No.808 of 2021 allowing substitution of legal heir allowed.

Swagat Adhikari Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.903 of 2020 With

¶3

I.A. No.190 of 2021 With I.A. No.808 of 2021 With

¶4

I.A. No.1935 of 2021

Swagat Adhikari

…… Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Mrinal Kanti Roy ….. Opp. Parties

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. J. N. Upadhyay, Advocate For the State : Mr. Md. Hatim, A.P.P For the O.P. No.02 : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate ---------

¶11

The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the parties had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.

¶12

---------

¶13

04/Dated: 24th June, 2021

¶14

I.A. No.808 of 2021

¶15

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of the revision application, complainant/ O.P. No.02 died on 23.10.2020, leaving behind his legal heir namely, Mreenmoy Roy. Accordingly, learned counsel seeks permission to substitute the legal heir namely, Mreenmoy Roy, in place of the deceased complainant/ O.P. No.02.

¶16

2. Mr. Suraj Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the legal heir of the deceased complainant/ O.P. No.02, has submitted that he has filed the vakalatnama on behalf of the legal heir and he has no objection.

¶17

3. In view of the submission of learned counsel for the

¶18

parties, I.A. No.808 of 2021 stands allowed.

¶19

4. Office is directed to make necessary correction by deleting the name of the deceased complainant/ O.P. No.02 and in his place mention the name of Mreenmoy Roy, the legal heir, in the cause title of the revision application.

¶20

Cr. Revision No.903 of 2020 With

¶21

I.A. Nos.1935 of 2021 & 190 of 2021

¶22

1. This revision has been preferred against the judgment

¶23

- 2 -

¶24

dated 08.09.2020, passed in Cr. Appeal No.47 of 2020 by the court of Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, affirming the judgment dated 22.02.2020, whereby the petitioner has been found guilty and convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Jamshedpur, in C/1 Case No.196 of 2017 (T.R. No.24 of 2020). The petitioner has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of four months and to pay the compensation of Rs.3,80,000/- (Rupees three lakhs eighty thousand only) to the complainant.

¶25

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of the revision application, both the parties have amicably settled the matter and joint compromise petition has been filed vide I.A. No.1935 of 2021. On the above facts, prayer has been made to quash and set aside the judgments of the courts below.

¶26

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P. No.02 has submitted that the legal heir of the deceased complainant has admitted that the due amount has been paid to him and he is ready to compound the offence.

¶27

4. Heard learned counsels for the parties. As per Section 147 of the N.I. Act, the offence is compoundable in nature.

¶28

Accordingly the compromise is allowed and the judgment dated 08.09.2020, passed in Cr. Appeal No. 47 of 2020 by the court of learned Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur and the judgment dated 22.02.2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Jamshedpur, in C/1 Case No.196 of 2017 (T.R. No.24 of 2020), are, hereby, quashed and set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I Act in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶29

5. In view of the compromise between the parties, I.A. No.190 of 2021, filed for exempting the petitioner from surrendering in the court below and from filing the surrender certificate, as mandated under Rule 159 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, stands allowed.

¶30

6. In the result, the revision and I.A. No.1935 of 2021 stand allowed.

¶31

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶32

Chandan/-

Swagat Adhikari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swagat Adhikari 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

Raghunandan Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Satyendra Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashif Nashim Vs the State of Jharkhand

Swapan Kumar Gupta Alias Swapan Kr Gupta Alias Swapan Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shivam Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhikhari Prasad Alias Bhikhari Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand