Allowed

Dinesh Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC17 Mar 2023Cr.Rev./751/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision application regarding a cheque dishonour case, the High Court of Jharkhand allowed the petition based on a recorded joint compromise between the petitioner and the complainant, ordering the petitioner's acquittal, setting aside previous convictions, and discharging liability of bail bonds.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner acquitted; impugned judgments set aside; discharged from bail bond liability; case disposed of based on compromise.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No.751 of 2018

¶2

Dinesh Kumar

¶3

... Petitioner

¶4

-Versus1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Anjani Kumar Singh … Opposite Parties ---------

¶5

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

¶6

------For the Petitioner : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, A.P.P. For the O.P No.2 : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. --------- Order No.10 Dated 17^th March, 2023

¶7

I.A No.2603 of 2023

¶8

The present Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner by challenging the judgment dated 04.05.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-Hazaribag in Criminal Appeal No.40 of 2018 whereby, the learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh had dismissed the said Criminal Appeal and has affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.01.2018 passed by Sri Pradeep Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Hazaribag in connection with Complaint Case No.1068 of 2014, corresponding to T.R No.264 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 Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three (03) months and to pay compensation of Rs.3,75,000/to the complainant under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶9

The present Interlocutory Application being I.A No.2603 of 2023 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner and the Opposite Party No.2 by way of Joint Compromise Petition.

¶10

Heard Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the O.P No.2.

¶11

¶12

Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case has been compromised between both the sides. He has further submitted that the petitioner has paid the entire amount of Rs.1,90,000/- for full and final settlement to the O.P No.2 and hence, the petitioner may be acquitted for the charges under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and this Criminal Revision Application may be allowed.

¶13

Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the State has raised no objection.

¶14

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 has also admitted the factum of compromise between both the between both the sides. It is further submitted that the O.P No.2 has received an amount of Rs.1,90,000/- from this petitioner.

¶15

Perused the records of this case and I.A No. 2603 of 2023 and considered the submissions of both the sides. 8. It transpires that the case has been compromised between both the sides and paragraph No.4 of the I.A No.2603 of 2023 read as follows:-

¶16

“Para-4. That it is humbly stated and submitted that on 23.09.2022 before the Mediation Centre, District Legal Service Authority, Hazaribag, the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 of the case have settled the matter amicably in connection with present case, Criminal Revision No.751 of 2018, including the following terms and conditions.

¶17

(a) Both the parties do not want to pursue the matter any furthermore.

¶18

(b) On the basis of mutual consent, the petitioner will make payment of Rs.1,90,000/- (Rs.one lakh ninety thousand) to the opposite party no.2

¶19

(c) Earlier, in compliance to the order of the Hon’ble High Court, petitioner has already deposited Rs.75,000/(seventy five thousand) to Nazarat, Hazaribagh to for

¶20

¶21

making payment of opposite party no.2, and opposite party no.2 will withdraw the same.

¶22

(d) Petitioner will make payment of remaining dues amount of Rs.1,15,000 (one lakh fifteen thousand) in two instalments.”

¶23

Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment dated 04.05.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-Hazaribag in Criminal Appeal No.40 of 2018 whereby, the learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh had dismissed the said Criminal Appeal and has affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.01.2018 passed by Sri Pradeep Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Hazaribag in connection with Complaint Case No.1068 of 2014, corresponding to T.R No.264 of 2018 are set-aside in terms of compromise and the petitioner 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.

¶24

Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision No.751 of 2018 stands allowed and is accordingly, disposed of.

¶25

Thus, I.A No.2603 of 2023 is allowed and stand disposed of.

¶26

Pending, Interlocutory Application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶27

( Sanjay Prasad, J .)

¶28

Bibha/Raja/-

Dinesh Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh 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

Nunu Prasad Durbay Vs State of Jharkhand

Rajendra Hembram Vs State of Jharkhand

Rakesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shahdeo Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sajid Ansari Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Md Shaheed Alam Vs The State Of Jharkhand