Shit Narayan Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

[2025:JHHC:31231]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 517 of 2024

Shit Narayan Mahto @ Sit Narayan Mahto, aged about 46 years, son of Late Dhaneshwar Mahto, resident of Village-Masanjore, P.O.-Mathurapur, P.S.-Jasidih, District-Deoghar.

¶4

..... … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand.

¶7

Jugal Yadav @ Yugal Yadav, son of Late Rambilash Yadav, resident of Kalipur Town, Madhupur, P.O. and P.S.-Madhupur, DistrictDeoghar.

¶8

..... … Opposite Parties

¶9

¶10

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶11

-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Deo, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Ms. Kehkashan Afsheen, Advocate. ------

¶12

07/ 09.10.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 27.02.2024, passed in Criminal Appeal no. 18 of 2023 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Madhupur, whereby the learned appellate court has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.02.2023 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur, in connection with Complaint Case No. 215 of 2008, whereby, the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of one year and a fine of Rs. 1,40,000/- for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act with the default clause that in default of payment of fine amount, the petitioner shall further undergo S.I. for six months.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this

¶14

case is arising out of Section 138 of NI Act and in the trial, the learned

¶15

-1-

¶16

[2025:JHHC:31231]

¶17

trial court has convicted the petitioner as prayed in the revision petition, which has been affirmed by the learned appellate court. He further submits that now the good sense has prevailed between the parties and the matter has been compromised between them. He next submits that the petitioner has already paid Rs. 1,40,000/- in the name of complainant-O.P. No. 2 Jugal Yadav @ Yugal Yadav by way of demand draft bearing D.D. No. 695037 dated 02.09.2025 of the State Bank of India, Madhupur Branch, which has been duly received by the complainant on 10.09.2025 in presence of the Mediator of the Jharkhand High Court Legal Service Authority premises at Ranchi, as well as the counsel of the O.P. No. 2 and counsel of the O.P. No. 2 has also identified the signature of the complainant-O.P. No. 2. To buttress his argument, he refers to Annexure-5 of the supplementary affidavit, which is the photocopy of the aforementioned demand draft, which has been duly received by the complainant saying that he has received the said demand draft. He then submits that in view of the compromise, the matter can be compounded and he refers to Section 147 of the NI Act and submits that the petitioner may kindly be exonerated.

¶18

Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State submits that the matter is arising out of Section 138 of NI Act. He further submits that from the supplementary affidavit, it transpires that the compromise has taken place between the petitioner and the complainant-O.P. No. 2.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 accepts the submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. She submits that the O.P. No. 2 has already received the aforementioned demand draft of Rs. 1,40,000/- and she also confirmed Annexure-5 of the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. She further submits that matter can be disposed of, as it is compoundable in nature in view of Section 147 of the NI Act.

¶20

From the records, it transpires that the matter is arising out of

¶21

-2-

¶22

[2025:JHHC:31231]

¶23

Section 138 of the NI Act and in light of supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, it further transpires that the demand draft of Rs. 1,40,000/- has been received by the complainant and signature of the O.P. No. 2 is there on the photo copy of the aforementioned demand draft. Further the case is compoundable in nature in light of Section 147 of the NI Act.

¶24

In view of the above, this court is, hereby, allowed the compounding of the case between the parties, since the matter has already been compromised between the parties. As such, the judgment dated 27.02.2024, passed in Criminal Appeal no. 18 of 2023 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Madhupur and the judgment dated 27.02.2023 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur, in connection with Complaint Case No. 215 of 2008, are hereby, set aside. The petitioner is exonerated from all the liabilities.

¶25

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that I.A. No. 12231 of 2024 has been filed for exemption from surrender and in para-10 thereof, it has been disclosed that pursuant to the compliance of the direction of the order dated 30.01.2010 passed in A.B.A. No. 63 of 2010, the petitioner has deposited two FDRs, bearing numbers-230535 dated 29.01.2010 of Rs. 40,000/- and 230536 dated 29.01.2010 of Rs. 30,000/- of the Vananchal Gramin Bank, Jasidih in the name of the petitioner and receipt of that was produced before the learned ACJM, Madhupur and thereafter the petitioner was released on anticipatory bail, in connection with Complaint Case No. 215 of 2008. He submits that the said FDRs of Rs. 70,000/- was deposited at the time of furnishing of the bail bond, as per the direction of the High Court, but the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court has not considered the same and passed the order against the petitioner.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the compromise has taken place between the petitioner and the

¶27

-3-

¶28

[2025:JHHC:31231]

¶29

complainant-O.P. No. 2 and the petitioner has already paid Rs. 1,40,000/-, which has been accepted by the learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2, as such, the petitioner may kindly be allowed to withdraw the aforementioned FDRs, which has been deposited in the Vananchal Gramin Bank, Jasidih.

¶30

In view of his such submission, prayer of the petitioner to withdraw the two FDRs, bearing numbers-230535 dated 29.01.2010 of Rs. 40,000/- and 230536 dated 29.01.2010 of Rs. 30,000/- of the Vananchal Gramin Bank, Jasidih in the name of the petitioner, which have been deposited in that bank is hereby allowed. The petitioner shall be entitled to withdraw the said deposited amount.

¶31

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

¶32

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶33

Dated:-09.10.2025

¶34

Amitesh/-

¶35

-4-

Shit Narayan Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shit Narayan Mahto 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

Mishal Tudu Alias Vishal Tudu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shiv Dutt Sharma Vs the Union of India through the Superintendent of Police C B I E O W

Babur Ali Mondal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Geeta Devi Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Sri Vivek Pratap Singh Vs the Central Bureau of Investigation through Its Director

Sri Vivek Pratap Singh Vs the Central Bureau of Investigation through Its Director