Allowed¶33

Sabir Ali v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC8 Dec 2025Cr.Rev./508/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Setting aside of Section 138 NI Act cheque-dishonour conviction on compromise; compoundability under Section 147 NI Act; payment of Rs.3,00,000/- compensation to complainant; joint compromise petition I.A. No.6293 of 2025; reliance on New Win Export v. A. Subramaniam (2024 SCC OnLine SC 1741) and quoted references to Damodar S. Prabhu, Gimpex, Meters And Instruments and Raj Reddy Kallem; Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi; Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi; Criminal Revision No. 508 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision allowed; conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act set aside along with the trial court judgment dated 20.12.2024 and the appellate judgment dated 28.01.2025; joint compromise petition (I.A. No.6293 of 2025) allowed; pending I.As disposed of. ¶33

Sabir Ali Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act ought to be set aside in view of the compromise between the parties and payment of the awarded compensation, the offence being compoundable under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

When the parties have compromised the matter and the Court is satisfied regarding the genuineness of the settlement, the conviction of the accused would not serve any purpose and it is required to be set aside; the offence arising under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is compoundable under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Both parties having compromised and the awarded compensation amount of Rs.3,00,000/- having already been paid by the petitioner to the complainant/opposite party no.2, the joint compromise petition is allowed.

¶25

Key takeaways

The judgment dated 20.12.2024 passed by the learned J.M.F.C.-XVI, Ranchi in Complaint Case No.5742/2022 and the judgment dated 28.01.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No.27/2025 are set aside.ratio¶32
The criminal revision petition is allowed and disposed of.ratio¶33
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi) — conviction of petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act with sentence of S.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, affirmed in appeal by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi — during pendency of revision, parties compromised and petitioner paid the awarded compensation to the complainant — offence compoundable under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instrument Act — Court, referring to New Win Export and another v. A. Subramaniam, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1741, held that where parties have compromised and genuineness of settlement stands established, conviction would serve no purpose and must be set aside — joint compromise petition (I.A. No.6293 of 2025) allowed; trial court judgment dated 20.12.2024 and appellate judgment dated 28.01.2025 set aside; revision allowed and disposed of.

¶1

( 2025:JHHC:36709 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 508 of 2025

¶3

Sabir Ali, aged about 34 years, son of Late Juman Baidya, resident of Village- Deganga, North-24 Parganas, P.O. & P.S. Deganga, Dist.North-24 Parganas, West Bengal … Petitioner

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Arshad Ansari, S/o Abdul Kalam, R/o Rehmat Nagar, Targadi, P.O. & P.S. Itki, District- Ranchi … Opposite Parties

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶8

For the Petitioner : Ms. Sanjana Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, Spl.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Advocate

¶9

05/08.12.2025 Heard Ms. Sanjana Kumari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,

¶10

Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for the State and Mr. Jitendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the complainant/opposite party no.2.

¶11

2. This criminal revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 20.12.2024 passed by the learned J.M.F.C.-XVI, Ranchi in Complaint Case No.5742/2022, whereby, the petitioner has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and he has been sentenced to undergo S.I. for 6 months and also to fine of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant/opposite party no.2 under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner has also challenged the judgment dated 28.01.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No.27/2025, whereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment of the learned trial court has been affirmed.

¶12

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the matter

¶13

-1-

¶14

Criminal Revision No. 508 of 2025

¶15

( 2025:JHHC:36709 )

¶16

is arising under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. She further submits that now a good sense has prevailed between the parties and they have compromised the matter and the joint compromise petition has been filed in the form of I.A. No.6293 of 2025. She then submits that the awarded compensation amount of Rs.3,00,000/- has already been paid to the complainant by the petitioner. She next submits that the matter is arising under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and it is compoundable under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. On these grounds, she submits that the joint compromise petition and this petition may kindly be allowed.

¶17

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that it appears that the compromise is there between the parties in view of the joint compromise petition.

¶18

5. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant/opposite party no.2 accepts the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and submits that the complainant has already received the compensation amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and in view of that, the complainant does not want to proceed with the matter.

¶19

6. When the parties have compromised the matter and the Court is satisfied regarding the genuineness of the settlement, the conviction of the accused would not serve any purpose and it is required to be set-aside. A Reference may be made to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of New Win Export and another v. A. Subramaniam , reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1741 . Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said judgment read as under:

¶20

-2-

¶21

Criminal Revision No. 508 of 2025

¶22

( 2025:JHHC:36709 )

¶23

“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 4interest 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 And Anr. v. Kanchan Mehta (2018) 1 SCC 5603)

¶24

7. In Raj Reddy Kallem v. The State of Haryana & Anr. [2024] 5 S.C.R 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. ”

¶25

7. In view of the above and considering the prayer made in the petition and further, the matter is arising under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and it is compoundable in light of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and both the parties have compromised the matter and the awarded compensation amount of Rs.3,00,000/- has already been paid by the petitioner to the complainant/opposite party no.2 and in view of that, the joint compromise petition is allowed.

¶26

8. Accordingly, I.A. No.6293 of 2025 is disposed of.

¶27

9. Considering the totality of the circumstances and compromise between

¶28

the parties and the petitioner has already paid awarded compensation amount to the complainant, this criminal revision petition is allowed and the judgment dated 20.12.2024 passed by the learned J.M.F.C.-XVI, Ranchi in Complaint Case No.5742/2022 and the judgment dated 28.01.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No.27/2025

¶29

-3-

¶30

Criminal Revision No. 508 of 2025

¶31

( 2025:JHHC:36709 )

¶32

are, hereby, set-aside.

¶33

10. Accordingly, this criminal revision petition is allowed and disposed of.

¶34

11. Pending I.A., if any, is disposed of.