Allowed

Krishna Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC10 Aug 2023Cr.Rev./1527/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two criminal revisions challenging convictions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the High Court allowed the petitions and acquitted the petitioner based on a post-conviction compromise and payment of the principal dues admitted by the opposite party.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgments dated 01.09.2018 and conviction orders dated 22.06.2017 are set aside; the petitioner is acquitted and discharged from bail bond liabilities in both C.P. Cases.

Krishna Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 1527 of 2018

Krishna Kumar

..… Petitioner

Versus

1.State of Jharkhand 2.Jairaj Kumar Saw ….. Opp. Parties

¶7

With Criminal Revision No. 1529 of 2018

Krishna Kumar

..… Petitioner

Versus

1.State of Jharkhand 2.Jairaj Kumar Saw ….. Opp. Parties

¶12

¶13

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

¶14

--------For the Petitioner : Mr. Samavesh Bhanjdeo, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, A.P.P. For O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate ---------

¶15

ORAL ORDER

¶16

11/10.08.2023 Criminal Revision No. 1527 of 2018 and Criminal Revision No. 1529 of 2018 are being heard and disposed of together as the parties in both the cases are same and similar.

¶17

2. Criminal Revision No. 1527 of 2018 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 01.9.2018 passed by Md. Shakir, learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro, Camp Court, Tenughat in Criminal Appeal No. 76 of 2017, by which criminal appeal preferred on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed, thereby affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.06.2017 passed by Sri Sandeep Kumar Bertam, J.M. 1^st Class, Bermo at Tenughat in C.P.Case No. 338/2014, corresponding to T.R.No. 1079/2017, whereby the

¶18

-2-

¶19

petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 6,88,000/-.

¶20

3. Criminal Revision No. 1529 of 2018 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 01.09.2018 passed by Sri Md. Shakir, learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro, Camp Court, Tenughat in Criminal Appeal No. 75/2017, by which the Criminal Appeal filed on behalf of the petitioners has been dismissed affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.06.2017, passed by Sri Sandeep Kumar Bertam, J.M. 1^st Class, Bermo at Tenughat, in C.P. Case No. 28/2014, by which the learned Magistrate has convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 6,00,000/-.

¶21

4. Pursuant to order dated 25.07.2023, steps have been taken on behalf of both the sides for mediation and today, when these cases were called out, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 in both the cases have submitted that the matter has been compromised between the parties and both sides are present in person and hence, necessary order may be passed. 5. The petitioner- Sri Krishna Kumar and O.P. No. 2-Shri Jairaj Kumar Saw in both the cases are also present before this Court.

¶22

-3-

¶23

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a joint compromise petition vide I.A. No. 7206 of 2023. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that both the cases have been compromised between the petitioner and O.P. No.2.

¶24

7. It is further submitted that the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- and 3,44,000/- i.e. 6,44,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has deposited Rs.3,44,000/to the O.P. No.2 in Criminal Revision No. 1527 of 2018 and has also complied with the order dated 15.3.2019, passed by the then Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶25

8. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has also paid Rs. 3,00,000/- in total towards Principal amount to O.P. No.2 in Criminal Revision No. 1529 of 2018 and has also complied with the order dated 15.3.2019 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 9. It is submitted that the entire principal amount in both the cases, i.e. Criminal Revision 1527 of 2018 and Criminal Revision No. 1529 of 2018 have been paid by the petitioner to O.P. No.2. It is submitted that matter has been settled between the parties and both sides have settled the dispute outside the court and hence the impugned judgments and order may be set aside and the petitioner may be acquitted in both the cases, i.e. Criminal Revision No. 1527 of 2018 and Criminal Revision No. 1529 of 2018.

¶26

-4-

¶27

10. No objection has been raised by the learned A.P.P. in both the cases, i.e. Criminal Revision No. 1527 of 2018 and Criminal Revision No. 1529 of 2018.

¶28

11. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 has also fairly submitted on instruction of the O.P. No.2 that O.P. No. 2 has received Rs. 3,44,000/- as principal amount in Criminal Revision No. 1527 of 2018 and Rs. 3,00,000/- in Criminal Revision No. 1529 of 2018 respectively. It is submitted that O.P. No. 2 has received the entire principal amount in both the cases and hence, necessary order be passed in terms of compromise and the O.P. No. 2 has also admitted the factum of compromise between the parties.

¶29

12. Perused the records of this case and I.A. No. 7206 of 2023 filed on behalf of the petitioner today i.e. on 10.08.2023. 13. So far as Criminal Revision No. 1527 of 2018 is concerned, it transpires from the Order dated 15.03.2019 passed by the then Co-ordinate Bench of this Court that the petitioner has paid Rs. 65,000/and Rs.80,000/- respectively to O.P. No.2 and he was directed to pay Rs. 1,25,000/- as part of the outstanding principal amount by 1^st July, 2019 and deposit the remaining outstanding principal amount by 1^st October, 2019.

¶30

14. It also transpires from the order dated 15.03.2019 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 1529 of 2018 that the petitioner has paid Rs. 65,000/- and Rs.80,000/-

¶31

-5-

¶32

respectively to O.P. No. 2 and was directed to pay Rs. 1,25,000/- as part of the outstanding principal amount by 1^st July, 2019 and has also directed to deposit the remaining outstanding principal amount by 1^st October, 2019.

¶33

15. From the submissions made on behalf of the parties in the Court, it is evident that the petitioner has paid the entire principal amount of Rs. 3,44,000/in Criminal Revision No. 1527 of 2018 to the O.P. No.2 and has paid Rs. 3,00,000/- towards the entire principal amount to O.P. No. 2 in Criminal Revision No. 1529 of 2018.

¶34

Thus, the petitioner has paid the entire principal amount.

¶35

16. Paragraph 1, 4, 5, 6 of I.A. No. 7206 of 2023 read as follows:

¶36

“1. The petitioner had filed two criminal revision petitions being Cr.Revision no. 1527 of 2018 and Cr.Revision No. 1529 of 2018 against the Judgments dated 1.9.2018 passed by Md. Shakir, the Learned Principal Sessions Judge, camp at Tenughat affirming the order of conviction passed in Complaint Case No. 338/2014 and Complaint Case no. 28/ 2014 u/s 138 Negotiable Instrument Act.

¶37

4. That the criminal revisions petitions were heard together on 10.8.2023 and after

¶38

-6-

¶39

kind intervention of this Hon’ble High Court, good sense prevailed among the parties and they agreed upon to compromise among themselves and not to pursue the Criminal Revision no. 1527 of 2018 and Criminal Revision no. 1529 of 2018 any further.

¶40

5. That in pursuance to above and enabling this Hon’ble Court to pass appropriate order the present joint compromise petition is being filed.

¶41

6. That no Interlocutory Application in matter of such joint compromise between the petitioner and opposite party no.2 has been filed before.

¶42

It is, therefore, prayed that Your Lordship may graciously be pleased to allow this application and pass appropriate order in terms of joint compromise entered between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2.

¶43

And/Or

¶44

Pass such other Order or Orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper

¶45

And for this the appellant shall ever pray.”

¶46

17. It transpires that the cases between the petitioner and O.P. No. 2 have been compromised and there is no dispute between the parties now. Even the petitioner, namely Shri Krishna Kumar and the

¶47

-7-

¶48

O.P. No. 2, i.e. Mr. Jairaj Kumar Saw are present today and they also have admitted the factum of compromise and O.P. No. 2 has also said that he has received Rs. 3,44,000/- in connection with Criminal Revision No. 1527 of 2018 and Rs. 3,00,000/- in connection with Criminal Revision No. 1529 of 2018 from the petitioner.

¶49

Thus, the matter between the parties have been compromised and there is no dispute remaining between the parties now. 18. Under the circumstances and in view of compromise between the parties the impugned judgment dated 01.09.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 76/2017 by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro, Camp Court, Tenughat and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.06.2017, passed by Shri Sandeep Kumar Bertam, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bermo at Tenughat in C.P. Case No.338/2014, corresponding to T.R. No. 1079/17 as well as judgment dated 01.9.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 75/2017 and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.06.2017 passed by Shri Sandeep Kumar Bertam, J.M. Ist Class, Bermo at Tenughat, passed in C.P. Case No. 28 of 2014 are set aside in terms of compromise and the petitioner, namely Krishna Kumar, is acquitted from the charges under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and the petitioner, namely Krishna Kumar is discharged from the liabilities of his

¶50

-8-

¶51

bail bond in connection with both C.P. Case No. 338 of 2014 and C.P.Case No. 28 of 2014.

¶52

20. Both the criminal revisions, i.e. Criminal Revision No. 1527 of 2018 and Criminal Revision No. 1529 of 2018 are allowed in terms of compromise.

¶53

21. Thus, I.A. No. 7206 of 2023 is allowed.

¶54

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

¶55

s.m.

Krishna Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Kumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuleshwar Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Niteesh Kumar Alias Nitish Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prabhat Kumar Sharma Vs State of Jharkhand

Md Azad Vs Salma Khatoon

B P Gupta Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Suleman Ansari Vs The State Of Jharkhand