Allowed¶34

Rakesh Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC15 Sept 2025Cr.Rev./1/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court criminal revision; Section 138 NI Act conviction compounded under Section 147 NI Act after compromise; delay of 29 days condoned; exemption from surrender granted; Rs. 5,25,000/- paid to complainant; trial judgment dated 29.07.2022 in Criminal Complaint Case No. 909 of 2017 and Sessions Judge order dated 31.08.2023 in Criminal Appeal No. 121 of 2022 set aside; Jamshedpur; Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.; decided 15.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 29 days condoned; petitioner exempted from surrender; offence under Section 138 NI Act allowed to be compounded on the basis of the compromise; trial court judgment dated 29.07.2022 (Criminal Complaint Case No. 909 of 2017) and Sessions Judge order dated 31.08.2023 (Criminal Appeal No. 121 of 2022) set aside; revision petition allowed and disposed of; pending I.As disposed of.

Rakesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 29 days in filing the revision petition should be condoned (I.A. No. 12791 of 2025). +2 more

¶14

Court's answer

The delay of 29 days in filing the present revision petition is condoned, no serious objection having been raised by the State or O.P. No. 2.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

Since the compromise has taken place between the parties and the case is compoundable under Section 147 of the NI Act, the petitioner is exempted from surrender before the learned court.

¶29

Key takeaways

In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties (brought on record by I.A. No. 12794 of 2025) and the compoundability of the case under Section 147 of the NI Act, the court allows the case to be compounded.ratio¶30
As a consequence of the compounding, the judgment dated 29.07.2022 of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in Criminal Complaint Case No. 909 of 2017 and the order dated 31.08.2023 of the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 121 of 2022 are set aside.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (Cr. Rev. No. 01 of 2024, High Court of Jharkhand, decided 15.09.2025, Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.): Petitioner convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by judgment dated 29.07.2022 of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in Criminal Complaint Case No. 909 of 2017 (S.I. one year four months; fine Rs. 6,05,000/- as compensation, of which Rs. 6,00,000/- to the complainant and Rs. 5,000/- to the State; default simple imprisonment four months), upheld by the Sessions Judge's order dated 31.08.2023 in Criminal Appeal No. 121 of 2022. The 29-day delay in filing the revision was condoned. The parties thereafter compromised, Rs. 5,25,000/- having been paid to the complainant (compromise petition filed as I.A. No. 12794 of 2025). Holding the case compoundable under Section 147 of the NI Act, the court exempted the petitioner from surrender, allowed the case to be compounded, and set aside both the trial judgment and the appellate order. Revision petition allowed and disposed of.

¶1

[2025:JHHC:28246]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 01 of 2024

¶3

Rakesh Kumar, aged about 48 years, son of Birendra Prasad Singh, resident of Kamal Kutir, H. No. 777, Road No.2, Hill View Colony, Dimna, P.O. and P.S. MGM (Mango), Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand.

¶4

..... … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand.

¶7

Ranjit Mahto, son of Pannu Mahto, resident of H. No. 788, J.P. Nagar, P.O. Agrico, P.S. Sitaramdera, Town Jamshedpur, District Singhbhum East, Jharkhand.

¶8

..... … Opposite Parties

¶9

¶10

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶11

-----For the Petitioner : Mr. D.K. karmakar, Advocate. For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Prasad, Advocate.

¶12

¶13

06/ 15.09.2025 I.A. No. 12791 of 2025 has been filed for condoning the

¶14

delay of 29 days in preferring this petition.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the matter is arising out of Section 138 of NI Act and in preparation for filing the present petition, the said delay has occurred and in view of that, the delay may kindly be condoned.

¶16

Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 have not raised any serious objection, if the delay of 29 days is condoned.

¶17

In view of the above and considering the submissions of respective parties and further in view of the averments made in the aforementioned I.A., the delay of 29 days in filing the present petition is condoned.

¶18

-1-

¶19

[2025:JHHC:28246]

¶20

The aforesaid I.A. is allowed and disposed of.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the matter is arising out of Section 138 of NI Act and the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, by the judgment dated 29.07.2022 in Criminal Complaint Case No. 909 of 2017 has been pleased to hold guilty and the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year and four months and also to impose fine of Rs. 6,05,000/- in form of compensation for having committed the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and further been pleased to observe that out of the amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- will be paid by the petitioner to O.P. No.2 /complainant compensation and Rs. 5,000/- be appropriated to the State, be deposited in Nazarat, Civil Court, Jamshedpur, and further been pleased to direct that in default of payment of compensation amount, the petitioner will undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months. He further submits that the said judgment of learned trial court has been challenged before the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 121 of 2022, whereby the learned revisional court has been pleased to dismiss the said appeal by order dated 31.08.2023 by way of upholding the order of the learned trial court.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that now the case has been compromised between the parties and the amount of Rs. 5,25,000/- has already been paid to the complainant-O.P. No. 2 and a compromise petition has been brought on record by way of filing I.A. No. 12794 of 2025. He further submits that for exemption from surrender one interlocutory application, being I.A. No. 12792 of

¶23

-2-

¶24

[2025:JHHC:28246]

¶25

2025 has also been filed.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that now the compromise has arrived at between the parties, as such, exemption from surrender may kindly be allowed, as the case is compoundable in nature under Section 147 of the NI Act.

¶27

Learned counsel appearing for the complainant-O.P. No. 2 and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State jointly submit that the compromise has taken place and the case is arising under Section 138 of NI Act and further the case is compoundable under Section 147 of the NI Act.

¶28

In view of the above submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties and looking into the contents of the compromise petition, it transpires that the agreed amount has been received by the complainant, as such, the prayer made in I.A. No. 12792 of 2025 for exemption from surrender before the learned court is allowed and the said I.A. is disposed of.

¶29

As such, the petitioner is exempted from surrender before the learned court, as the compromise has taken place between the parties and further the case is compoundable under Section 147 of the NI Act.

¶30

In view of the above discussions and further considering the rival submissions of the respective parties and in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, which has been brought on record by way of filing I.A. No. 12794 of 2025 and the case is compoundable in nature in light of Section 147 of the NI Act, this court allows the case to be compounded.

¶31

-3-

¶32

[2025:JHHC:28246]

¶33

Consequently, the judgment dated 29.07.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, in Criminal Complaint Case No. 909 of 2017 and the order dated 31.08.2023, passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 121 of 2022, are hereby, set aside.

¶34

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

¶35

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶36

Dated:-15.09.2025 Amitesh/-

¶37

-4-

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?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukund Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Priyanka Kumari through Her Natural Guardina and Fufa (Paternal Uncle), Namely Somra Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Krishna Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vinod Choudhary Alias Vinod Kumar Choudhary Alias Binod Choudhary Alias Binod Kumar Choadhary Vs State of Jharkhand

Alvinus Hembrom Alias Elvinos Hembrom Vs State of Jharkhand

Sachet Kumar Alias Sachet Kumar Thakur Vs State of Jharkhand