Allowed

Rakesh Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC16 Mar 2023Cr.Rev./1756/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Jharkhand allowed the petitioner's criminal revision petition and I.A. filed as a joint compromise petition. Finding that the dispute arising under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act had been amicably settled and the compensation amount paid, the court set aside the lower courts' judgment of conviction and sentence, acquitted the petitioner, and discharged the bail bo

What did the court decide?

Set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence; acquit the petitioner; discharge petitioner from bail liability.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No.1756 of 2018

¶2

Rakesh Kumar ... Petitioner -Versus1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Mohammad Usman … Opposite Parties

¶3

¶4

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

¶5

------For the Petitioner : Mr. D.K. Karmakar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anjani Kr. Toppo, A.P.P. For the O.P No.2 : Mr. D.K. Prasad, Adv. --------- Order No.11 Dated 16^th March, 2023

¶6

I.A No.2311 of 2023

¶7

The present interlocutory application being I.ANo.2311 of 2023 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner and the O.P No.2, by way of Joint Compromise Petition.

¶8

Heard Mr. D.K. Karmakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anjani Kr. Toppo, learned counsel for the State Mr. D.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the O.P No.2.

¶9

The present Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner by challenging the judgment dated 20.08.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, in Criminal Appeal No.107 of 2018 whereby, the learned learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, had dismissed the said Criminal Appeal and has affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.04.2018 passed by Mrs. Darsna, Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with C/1 Case No.235 of 2016, corresponding to T.R No.231 of 2018, whereby, the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1981 and has been sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of four (04) months and to pay Rs.3,92,000/- to the complainant by way of compensation.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case has been compromised between both the sides. It is further submitted that entire amount has been paid by the petitioner to the O.P No.2. It is further submitted that no amount is due and a photocopy of the money receipts have been enclosed at page-27 of the said Interlocutory Application.

¶11

Learned counsel for the State has raised no objection.

¶12

Learned counsel for the O.P No.2 has also admitted the factum of compromise between both the sides and has submitted that the O.P No.2 has received the entire amount from the petitioner.

¶13

Perused the records of this case, I.A No.2311 of 2023 and considered the submissions of both the sides.

¶14

Paragraph Nos.6 to 10 of the I.A No.2311 of 2023 read as follows:-

¶15

“Para.6:- That the petitioner states that it is also relevant to mention here that the petitioner was very much inclined to certain terms and conditions, as the petitioner became ready to pay back the entire compensation amount of Rs.3,92,000/- only within 7 months and out of which, the petitioner has already given a sum of Rs.50,000/- twice only in cash to the opposite party no.2 and further the petitioner undertakes and assured that he shall pay the balance amount in 7 instalments regularly in the account of opposite party no.2.

¶16

Para.8:- That the petitioner states that it is also relevant to mention here that as the present case arises out of Section 138 of the N.I Act and offence is compoundable as per the provisions of SEction 147 of the N.I. Act, the petipetitioner the opposite party no.2 have settled their dispute amicably.

¶17

Para.9:- That it is most humbly states and submits that if the impugned order of criminal revision petition is set-aside and the present criminal revision petition is allowed, the opposite party no.2 has no objection.

¶18

Para.10:- That it is jointly prayed before this Hon’ble Court that in view of the aforesaid development in this case, this joint compromise petition may be allowed in terms of the settlement arrived by and between the parties and the instant criminal revision petition may be allowed by accepting the compromise made between the parties.

¶19

It appears that the case has been compromised between both the sides and there is no dispute between the parties.

¶20

Under the circumstances, judgment dated 20.08.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, in Criminal Appeal No.107 of 2018 and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.04.2018 passed by Mrs. Darsna, Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with C/1 Case No.235 of 2016, corresponding to T.R No.231 of 2018 are set-aside in terms of compromise and the petitioner namely, Rakesh Kumar is acquitted for the charges under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and set at free and the petitioner is also discharged from the liability of his bail bonds.

¶21

Thus, I.A No.2311 of 2023 is allowed and stand disposed of. 12. Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision No.1756 of 2018 stands allowed and is accordingly, disposed of.

¶22

( Sanjay Prasad, J .)

¶23

Raja/-

Rakesh Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nizam Ansari Alias Nejam Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shyam Sunder Yadav Vs Pankaj Yadav

Kurli Kunwar Kulri Kunwar Vs State of Jharkhand

Nunu Prasad Durbay Vs State of Jharkhand

Rajendra Hembram Vs State of Jharkhand

Biresh Chandra Pathak Alias Bidesh Chandra Pathak And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Nizam Ansari Alias Nejam Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shyam Sunder Yadav Vs Pankaj Yadav

Kurli Kunwar  Kulri Kunwar Vs State of Jharkhand

Nunu Prasad Durbay Vs State of Jharkhand

Rajendra Hembram Vs State of Jharkhand

Biresh Chandra Pathak Alias Bidesh Chandra Pathak And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Kurli Kunwar Kulri Kunwar Vs State of Jharkhand