Bechan Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

2025:JHHC:37777

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 142 of 2024

----

Bechan Singh, aged about 34 years, son of Budhan, resident of H. No.15, Panchwati Nagar, PO and PS – Sonari, District – Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum .... Petitioner

¶5

-- Versus --

¶6

1. The State of Jharkhand

¶7

2. Khelaram Tudu, son of Gurba Tudu, resident of Qr. No. N-Type 25 and 27, Road No.21, near Sun Temple, PO and PS – Sidhgora, District – East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur .... Opposite Parties

¶8

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶10

For the Petitioner	:-	--- Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate
For the State	:-	Mrs. Mohua Palit, Advocate
For O.P. No.2	:-	Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate ----

¶11

06 /16.12.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned

¶12

counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2.

¶13

2. This petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 08.12.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No.76 of 2023 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jamshedpur has been pleased to dismiss the appeal and confirm the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.03.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Jamshedpur in Complaint Case No.1482 of 2020 by which the petitioner has been held guilty under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and directed to pay Rs.1,20,000/- as compensation to the complainant and also directed

¶14

--1--

¶15

Criminal Revision No. 142 of 2024

¶16

2025:JHHC:37777

¶17

to pay fine of Rs.2,500/- to be deposited in Nazarat, Jamshedpur and in default of payment of fine further undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

¶18

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that now a good sense has prevailed between the parties and both the sides have compromised the matter and in view of that a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- has already been paid to the opposite party No.2. He further submits that I.A. No.3533 of 2024 has been filed for compromise between the parties as such the same may kindly be allowed and disposed of.

¶19

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that it appears that the matter is compromised in light of the I.A.

¶20

5. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2/ complainant also accepts the submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and submits that the compromise has reached between the parties and I.A. has been filed which is on separate affidavit of both the sides. He further submits that a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- has already been received by the opposite party No.2/complainant and in view of that he does not want to proceed further in the matter.

¶21

6. In view of above and considering that the matter is arising under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act which is compoundable under Section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act and both the sides have compromised the matter and in view of that the prayer made in I.A. No.3533 of 2024, meant for compromise, is hereby allowed.

¶22

7. Reference may be made to the case of New Win Export and

¶23

Another versus A. Subramaniam reported in (2024) SCC OnLine

¶24

--2--

¶25

Criminal Revision No. 142 of 2024

¶26

2025:JHHC:37777

¶27

SC 1741, wherein at paragraph Nos.6 and 7 it has been held as under :-

¶28

“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)

¶29

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

¶30

8. In view of the above and considering the compromise between

¶31

the parties, I.A. No.3533 of 2024, meant for compromise, is hereby allowed and disposed of and the matter is allowed to be compounded between the parties.

¶32

9. In light of the above, the petitioner is hereby acquitted by setting aside the judgment dated 08.12.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No.76 of 2023 and judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

¶33

--3--

¶34

Criminal Revision No. 142 of 2024

¶35

2025:JHHC:37777

¶36

29.03.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Jamshedpur in Complaint Case No.1482 of 2020.

¶37

10. The petitioner is hereby exempted to surrender before the learned Court and surety is hereby discharged, as such I.A. No.3867 of

¶38