Ishwar Chandra Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

 ( 2025:JHHC:36689 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1018 of 2025

¶3

Ishwar Chandra Das, aged about 59 years, son of late Hoda Das, resident of J/3/1, Telco Company, P.O. Telco Works, P.S. Telco, Town Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand

¶4

...... … Petitioner Versus

¶5

1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Vinay Kumar Singh, son of late Paras Singh, resident of H.No.7, Shesh Nagar, Chota Govindpur, P.O. and P.S. Govindpur, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum .…. … Opposite Parties

¶6

-------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner :Mr. Dilip Kr. Karmakar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vijoy Kr. Sinha, A.P.P For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. D.K. Prasad, Advocate

¶7

05/ 08.12.2025 : Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel

¶8

for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.

¶9

This revision petition has been preferred for setting aside judgment dated 20.06.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No. 165 of 2024 whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge-V has been pleased to dismiss the criminal appeal with modification in the sentence imposed by the trial court from Rs. 4,00,000/compensation to the cheque amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- and also for setting aside judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.07.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jamshedpur in connection with Complaint Case No. 1683 of 2019, T.R. No. 884 of 2024 whereby and whereunder the petitioner was held guilty under section 138 of N.I. Act and further sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months and to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant under section 138 of N.I. Act.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the matter is arising out of Negotiable Instrument Act. He further submits that the petitioner was held guilty under section 138 of N.I. Act and he was further sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months and to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- by the

¶11

¶12

 ( 2025:JHHC:36689 )

¶13

learned Magistrate which was challenged before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V who has been pleased to dismiss the criminal appeal with modification in the sentence imposed by the trial court from Rs. 4,00,000/- compensation to the cheque amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- and rest part of the judgment was kept intact. He also submits that now good sense has prevailed between the parties and the matter has been compromised and pursuant to that compensation amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- has been paid to the complainant by the petitioner and in this regard I.A. No. 11376 of 2025. has been filed on behalf of petitioner and complainant. He further submits that since the matter is arising out of Negotiable Instrument Act and now compromise has taken place in view of that judgment of conviction and order of sentence may kindly be set aside.

¶14

Learned counsel for the State submits that compromise is there in the light of averment made in the said I.A.

¶15

Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 accepts the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire compensation amount has been received by the complainant and joint compromise petition has been filed on separate affidavit of both sides and complainant does not want to proceed with the case.

¶16

In the case of “New Win Export and Another Vs. A. Subramaniam” reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 1741 the Hon’ble Supreme

¶17

Court in para 6 and 7 has held as under:-

¶18

“6. At this juncture, we would also like to reiterate a few words regarding the principles of compounding of offences in the context of NI Act. It is to be remembered that dishonour of cheques is a regulatory offence which was made an offence only in view of public interest so that the reliability of these instruments can be ensured. A large number of cases involving dishonour of cheques are pending before courts which is a serious concern for our judicial system. Keeping in mind that the ‘compensatory aspect’ of remedy shall have priority over the ‘punitive aspect’, courts should encourage compounding of offences under the NI Act if parties are willing to do so. (See : Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 6631 , Gimpex Private Limited v. Manoj Goel (2022) 11 SCC 7052 , Meters And Instruments Private Limited v. Kanchan Mehta (2018) 1 SCC 5603)

¶19

In Raj Reddy Kallem v. The State of Haryana [2024] 5 SCR 203,

¶20

¶21

 ( 2025:JHHC:36689 )

¶22

this Court followed the same principles and quashed a conviction under the NI Act, by invoking its powers under Article 142, even though the complainant therein declined to give consent for compounding, observing that the accused has sufficiently compensated the complainant.”

¶23

In view of above and considering the matter is arising out of Negotiable Instrument Act and now compromise has reached between the parties which is compoundable under section 147 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “ New Win Export and Another Vs. A. Subramaniam (surpa) , the judgment dated 20.06.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No. 165 of 2024 and judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.07.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jamshedpur in connection with Complaint Case No. 1683 of 2019, T.R. No. 884 of 2024, are set aside.

¶24

This criminal revision is allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A. if any, stands disposed of.

¶25

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶26

Dated. 08.12.2025 Satyarthi-

¶27

Ishwar Chandra Das v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ishwar Chandra Das 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maheshwar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anuj Singh Alias Anuj Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Saddam Alias MD Saddam Hussain Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sabir Ali Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashwani Kumar Rajgarhia Vs the State of Jharkhand

Swapan Kumar Sarkar Vs the State of Jharkhand