Nishi Kant Shukla Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

2025:JHHC:37724

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.797 of 2025

¶3

With

¶4

Cr. Revision No.945 of 2025

¶5

Nishi Kant Shukla, Son of Late Sri Ravindra Nath Shukla @ Rabindra Nath Sukla, age about 58 years, resident of C/o Siyaram Sharma, Shamshan Road, Chiragora, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District - Dhanbad

¶6

… Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand

¶9

Narendra Sharma, son of late Ramashish Sharma @ Ramashish Singh, resident of Lahabani Dhaiya, P.O. – Barwadda, P.S. – Barwadda, District – Dhanbad. … Opp. Parties

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶11

For the Petitioner	------ : Mr.	Sandeep Barnwal, Advocate.
For the State	: Mr.	Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl. PP
	Mr.	Vishwanath Roy, Spl. P.P.
For the O.P. No.2	: Mr. ------	Kalyan Banerjee, Advocate

¶12

5/16.12.2025 Heard the parties.

¶13

It has been pointed out that two complaint cases have been filed and another Criminal Revision is listed at serial No.60 of today’s list, i.e. Cr. Revision No.945 of 2025 and in the light of one compromise petition, both cases have been compromised. As such, both the aforesaid criminal cases have been taken up together.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Cr. Revision No.797 of 2025 has been preferred challenging the judgment dated 25.04.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Cr. Appeal No.209 of 2024, whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.09.2024 passed in C.P. Case No.264 of 2022 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Dhanbad, the petitioner has been convicted under Section 138 of N.I. Act to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months with

¶15

1

¶16

2025:JHHC:37724

¶17

a fine of Rs.5,00,000/- and in default to pay the fine, undergo further simple imprisonment for three months and the Judgment of learned trial court has been confirmed by the learned Appellate Court and appeal has been dismissed.

¶18

Learned counsel further submits that Cr. Revision No.945 of 2025 has been preferred against the Judgment dated 25.04.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Cr. Appeal No.210 of 2024, whereby the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.09.2024 passed in C.P. Case No.263 of 2022 by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Dhanbad has been confirmed and the appeal was dismissed, whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of N.I. Act and directed to undergo S.I. for a period of three months with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further S.I. for three months and the appeal has been dismissed.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that both the matters arising under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and in Cr. Revision No.797 of 2025, the cheque amount was Rs.4,00,000/- and in criminal revision No.945 of 2025, the cheque amount was Rs.60,000/-.

¶20

He submits that a good sense has been prevailed between the parties and by way of onetime settlement, both the complaint cases have been compromised and for that I.A. No.16493 of 2025 and I.A. No.16492 of 2025 have been filed in both the cases by way of separate affidavit by both the parties. He next submits that

¶21

2

¶22

2025:JHHC:37724

¶23

Rs.4,25,000/- in terms of compromise of both the complaint cases have already been paid to the opposite party No.2. In light of compromise, he submits that both the cases may kindly be allowed and disposed of.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that it appears that the compromise is there in light of aforesaid IAs and the matter is arising out of Section 138 of N.I. Act.

¶25

Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 submits that the matter has been compromised and the complainant has already received Rs.4,25,000/- in terms of compromise for both the cases and the compromise petition in both the IAs are also affidavited separately. He submits that in light of compromise, O.P. No.2 does not want to proceed further in the case.

¶26

In view of the above and considering that the matters are arising out of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, which is compoundable under Section 147 of Negotiable Instrument Act and both the parties have compromised the matter. In view of that the prayer made in the IAs in both the cases meant for compromise is allowed.

¶27

Reference may be made to New Win Export and another Vs. A. Subramaniam reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1741 , wherein it is held in Para 6 and 7, which read 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

¶29

3

¶30

2025:JHHC:37724

¶31

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 663, Gimpex Private Limited v. Manoj Goel (2022) 11 SCC 7052, Meters And Instruments Private Limited v. Kanchan Mehta (2018) 1 SCC 5602)

¶32

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.”

¶33

In view of the above and considering the compromise between the parties, the joint compromise petition being I.A. No.16493 of 2025 and I.A. No.16492 of 2025 are allowed and disposed of and the case is allowed to be compounded between the parties.

¶34

In view of the above, judgment dated 25.04.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Cr. Appeal No.209 of 2024 and Cr. Appeal No.210 of 2024 and judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.09.2024 passed in C.P. Case No.264 of 2022 and C.P. Case No.263 of 2022 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Dhanbad are hereby set-aside.

¶35