Swapan Kumar Sarkar Vs the State of Jharkhand

( 2025:JHHC:36698 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 575 of 2024

Swapan Kumar Sarkar @ Sapan Kumar Sarkar, aged about 54 years, son of Late Amar Chand Sarkar, resident of Railway Quarter No.J/17/2, Chakradharpur, P.O. & P.S. Chakradharpur, District- West Singhbhum

¶4

… Petitioner

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

The State of Jharkhand 2. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, S/o Late Ramdeo Mishra, resident of Railway Quarter No.0/98/1, Porter Kholi, Ward No.11, P.O. & P.S. Chakdradharpur, District- West Singhbhum … Opposite Parties

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI -----

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vijoy Kumar Sinha, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Praveen Shankar Prasad, Advocate -----

¶9

05/08.12.2025 Heard Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Vijoy Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the State and Mr. Praveen Shankar Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the complainant/ opposite party no.2.

¶10

2. This criminal revision petition has been filed challenging the judgment dated 24.07.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Chaibasa in Complaint Case No.14/2022 (T.R.No.125/2023), whereby, the petitioner has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and six months and fine of Rs.9,80,000/- as compensation to be paid to the complainant as per Section 143(1) (Proviso) N.I. Act read with Section 357(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure within two months of passing of the sentence and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner has been further sentenced to undergo S.I. for two months and in non-payment of the compensation amount within time, it was further ordered that the amount shall be recovered under the provisions of Section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and

¶11

-1-

¶12

Criminal Revision No. 575 of 2024

¶13

( 2025:JHHC:36698 )

¶14

the amount of Rs.25,000/- which has been paid by the petitioner to the complainant at the time of mediation will be adjusted in the fine amount. The petitioner has further challenged the judgment dated 11.03.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Criminal Appeal No.98/2023, whereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment passed by the learned trial court has been affirmed.

¶15

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the matter is arising out of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. He further submits that now a good sense has prevailed between the parties and both have compromised the matter. He then submits that I.A. No.2840 of 2025 has been filed for joint compromise between the petitioner and complainant/ opposite party no.2. He next submits that in light of the compromise reached between the parties, it has been settled that the petitioner will pay a sum of Rs.7,25,000/- to the complainant. He also submits that the sum of Rs.5,25,000/- has already been paid by the petitioner to the complainant. He submits that in light of the compromise, the sum of Rs.10,000/- per month, as rest of the amount, is being paid to the complainant and till date further amount of Rs.80,000/- has been paid in light of the compromise. On these grounds, he submits that the joint compromise petition may kindly be allowed as the matter is compoundable in light of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

¶16

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that in light of the joint compromise petition, it transpires that both the parties have compromised the matter.

¶17

-2-

¶18

Criminal Revision No. 575 of 2024

¶19

( 2025:JHHC:36698 )

¶20

5. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant, who is opposite party no.2 herein accepts the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and submits that sum of Rs.5,25,000/- and further Rs.80,000/- has been paid by the petitioner to the complaint and rest of the amount is being paid by the petitioner per month. He further submits that in view of the compromise and the amount is being paid, the complainant does not want to proceed with the matter.

¶21

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:

¶22

“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)

¶23

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. ”

¶24

-3-

¶25

Criminal Revision No. 575 of 2024

¶26

( 2025:JHHC:36698 )

¶27

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 in view of that, the joint compromise petition is allowed.

¶28

8. Accordingly, I.A. No.2840 of 2025 is disposed of.

¶29

9. Considering the totality of the circumstances and compromise between the parties, this criminal revision petition is allowed and the judgment dated 24.07.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Chaibasa in Complaint Case No.14/2022 (T.R.No.125/2023) and the judgment dated 11.03.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Criminal Appeal No.98/2023 are, hereby, set-aside.

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶33

Dated: 8^th December, 2025 Ajay/

¶34

Uploaded on 09/12/2025

¶35

-4-