Disposed¶24

Aash Mohammad v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC5 Sept 2024Cr.Rev./1794/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 138 NI Act conviction (J.M. 1st Class, Deoghar, 31/03/2018; Sessions judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 62/2018 dated 10/09/2018) set aside — Jharkhand High Court disposed of Cr. Revision No. 1794 of 2018 on joint compromise (I.A. No. 9669 of 2024); compensation already received by complainant; matrimonial-dispute backdrop; accused directed to be released.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition disposed of in terms of the joint compromise; conviction of the petitioner by the impugned judgements set aside; I.A. No. 9669 of 2024 disposed of and pending I.A.s closed; petitioner in custody directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case; copy of order to be sent to the court concerned through 'FAX/E-mail'. ¶24

Aash Mohammad Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal revision application should be disposed of in terms of the joint compromise petition filed by the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 through I.A. No. 9669 of 2024, with the petitioner's conviction set aside.

¶16

Court's answer

After hearing counsel and considering that a joint compromise petition had been filed and that opposite party No. 2 had no objection to the conviction being set aside, the revision petition is disposed of in terms of compromise.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

Consequent upon disposal in terms of compromise, the conviction of the petitioner by the impugned judgements is set aside.

¶24

Key takeaways

I.A. No. 9669 of 2024 (the joint compromise petition) is disposed of accordingly.ratio¶25
Since the petitioner is in custody in connection with this case, he is directed to be released forthwith if he is not wanted in any other case; a copy of the order is to be communicated to the court concerned through 'FAX/E-mail'.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi — Cr. Revision No. 1794 of 2018 (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.; order dated 05.09.2024). The petitioner had been convicted on 31/03/2018 in P.C.R. Case No. 98/2017 TR Case No. 811/2018 by the J.M., 1st Class, Deoghar under section 138 of the N.I. Act, sentenced to S.I. for one year with a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (default S.I. three months, trial custody to be set off), with a judgment dated 10/09/2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 62/2018 by the Sessions Judge, Deoghar; the revision sought setting aside of both. Through I.A. No. 9669 of 2024 the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 filed a joint compromise petition. Counsel for opposite party No. 2 (who had already received the compensation amount fixed by the trial court) submitted that the matter primarily arose out of a matrimonial dispute and raised no objection to the conviction being set aside; counsel for the State likewise raised no objection, noting that an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is compoundable. The Court disposed of the revision in terms of the compromise, set aside the conviction by the impugned judgements, disposed of I.A. No. 9669 of 2024, closed pending interlocutory applications, and directed the petitioner's forthwith release if not wanted in any other case.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Revision No. 1794 of 2018

¶3

Aash Mohammad aged about 55 years, S/O Late Rahman Mian, resident of Village – Prandih, (Bhaliwaser), P.O. & P.S. –Devipur, District – Deoghar (Jharkhand)

¶4

… … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Sabiya Khatton D/O Hussain Ansari, R/O Village- Ghaghi, P.O + P.S. Jasidih, District- Deoghar.

¶8

… … Opposite Parties

¶9

¶10

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶11

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Niranjan Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State : A.P.P.

¶12

For the Opp. Party No. 2 : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate ---

¶13

23 /05.09.2024

¶14

I.A. No. 9669 of 2024

¶15

1. The learned counsel for the parties are present.

¶16

2. It is submitted that a joint compromise petition has been filed by the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 through this interlocutory application.

¶17

3. This revision application is filed for the following reliefs:- “The instant revision application is being filed on behalf of the petitioner for setting aside of a judgment dated 10/09/2018, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 62/2018, by Sri Mithilesh Prasad Sessions Judge, Deoghar, as well as judgement of conviction and sentence dated 31/03/2018, passed in P.C.R. Case No. 98/2017 TR Case No. 811/2018, passed by Sri Ajay Bishu Minz, J.M, 1^st Class at Deoghar, whereby and where under the petitioner above named has been convicted for the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 1 years along with fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- under section 138 of N.I. Act with a fine of Rs. 8.5% per annum from the date of filing of the case as per section 357 of Cr.P.C. and in default of payment of fine

¶18

¶19

further directed to undergo S.I. for 3 months however, the period of custody undergone during trial has been directed to set off.”

¶20

4. The learned counsel submits that the compensation amount fixed by the learned trial court has already been received by the opposite party No. 2.

¶21

5. The learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 submits that the matter primarily arises out of matrimonial dispute between the parties and since the amount has already been received by the opposite party No. 2, he has no objection if the conviction of the petitioner is set aside and this revision is disposed of in terms of compromise.

¶22

6. The learned counsel for the State has no objection. He submits that the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act is compoundable in nature.

¶23

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances and that a joint compromise petition has been filed before this court and it has been submitted by the learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 that he has no objection if the conviction is set aside. This revision petition is disposed of in terms of compromise.

¶24

8. Consequently, the conviction of the petitioner by the impugned judgements is also set aside.

¶25

9. The I.A. No. 9669 of 2024 is disposed of accordingly.

¶26

10. Pending I.A., if any, is closed.

¶27

11. The petitioner is in custody in connection with this case, he is directed to be released forthwith, if he is not wanted in any other case. 12. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX/E-mail’.

¶28

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶29

Rakesh/-

¶30

Aash Mohammad v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aash Mohammad v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Daroga Pandit Vs the State of Jharkhand

Govind Mandal Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Dr Partho Mazumdar Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Menuka Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Zakir Hussain Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Nand Kishore Mandal Vs The State Of Jharkhand