Allowed

Braja Kishore Swain v. Pratap Keshari Mohanty

Orissa HC22 Jul 2024CRLREV/184/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa quashed a conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 following an amicable settlement between the parties. The court held that continuing proceedings after dispute resolution serves no purpose and is an abuse of court process.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment dated 20.06.2022 was quashed; the compromise petition was allowed; parties are directed to release the deposited amount of Rs. 2,00,000 to the opposite party.

Braja Kishore Swain Vs Pratap Keshari Mohanty — Cheque Dishonour | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No. 184 of 2023

¶2

Braja Kishore Swain ..…... Petitioner Mr. Satyabrata Mohanty, Adv.

¶3

-versus-

¶4

Pratap Keshari Mohanty .…...... Opposite Party

¶5

Mr. Alok Kumar Das, Adv.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

¶8

ORDER

¶9

22.07.2024

¶10

CRLREV No.148 of 2023 and I.A. No.683 of 2023

¶11

Order No.

¶12

¶13

This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶14

The joint affidavit by the Petitioner and the Opposite Party files in Court today. The same be kept on record.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

Petitioner has filed this Criminal Revision challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.06.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur in 1.C.C No.331 of 2019, which has also been

¶17

confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur vide Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU judgment dated 06.03.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.18 Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 24-Jul-2024 11:43:11 o f 2 022.

¶18

¶19

Apropos to the joint affidavit filed by the parties, learned counsel for both the parties submit that the matter has been compromised and the dispute between the parties has been settled amicably. The relevant portion of the compromise terms and conditions are as follows:

¶20

“ 1. That the aforementioned revision petition filed by the petitioner, assailing the order dated 06.03.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.18/2022 by the learned Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur, confirming the order dated 20.06.2022 in ICC No.331/2019 (Trial Case No.180/2021) by the learned CJM, Jagatsinghpur against the petitioner (accused) u/s.138 of N.I. Act, 1881 convicting the above mentioned petitioner sentenced undergo S.I. for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,00,000/-.

¶21

2. That the fact stated in the aforesaid petition may be treated as part of this application and for the sake of brevity it is not repeated.

¶22

3. That as the petitioner and the opposite party has settled their dispute amicably between them on 06.07.2024 in the presence of village gentries.

¶23

4. That during the course of hearing this case on 12.07.2024 this Hon'ble Court directed to file joint affidavit of the parties and in pursuance to this Hon'ble Court's direction the present petitioner and opposite party have sworn before the learned Oath Commissioner of this Hon'ble Court today dated 19.07.2024.

¶24

5. That it is also agreed between the parties that the 2,00,000/deposited by the accused petitioner in the trial court is to be released in favour of the present Opp. party (complainant).

¶25

6. That the individual affidavits of the parties are appended herewith.”

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 24-Jul-2024 11:43:11

¶28

In the present case, since the dispute between the parties has already been settled amicably and both the parties do not

¶29

¶30

want to proceed with the case, no fruitful purpose would be served by allowing the proceeding to continue any further. On the other hand, this Court is of the considered view that the continuance of the proceeding shall be mere abuse of court process.

¶31

The Supreme Court has also time and again reiterated that the courts should encourage compounding of offences under the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, while observing that the “compensatory aspect” of remedy shall have the priority over the “punitive aspect”. The Court has in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H .¹ , Gimpex Private Limited v. Mnoj Goel² and Meters and Instruments Private Limited and Anr. V. Kanchan Mehta³ has observed that the dishonoured of cheques is a statutory offence in order to enhance the reliability of the negotiable instruments. Hence, the compensatory approach is better suited than the punitive aspect.

¶32

Further, the apex Court in a recent case in M/s. New Win Export and Anr. v. A. Subramaniam⁴ has emphasized the similar views and in Raj Reddy Kallem v. The State of

¶33

Signature Not Verified

¶34

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack1 (2010) 5 SCC 663 1 Date: 24-Jul-2024 11:43:112 (2022) 11 SCC 7052 3 (2018) 1 SCC 5603 4 CRLA No.2948 of 2024

¶35

¶36

Haryana and Anr .⁵ wherein it has echoed the similar sentiments.

¶37

In view of the above, this Court, in order to secure the ends of justice, allows the compromise petition filed by the parties, quashing the impugned judgment dated 20.06.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur in I.C.C. Case No.331 of 2019. However, the Opposite Party is directed to approach the court below to get the amount of Rs.2,00,000/(Rupees two lakhs) which is stated to have been deposited by the Petitioner before the court below.

¶38

In view of the above compromise between the parties, both the CRLREV and the I.A. are disposed of.

¶39

( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)

¶40

Judge

¶41

Murmu

¶42

Signature Not Verified

¶43

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 24-Jul-2024 11:43:11

¶44

5 [2024] 5 S.C.R. 203

Braja Kishore Swain v. Pratap Keshari Mohanty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Braja Kishore Swain v. Pratap Keshari Mohanty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sangram Keshari Binod Vs Uco Bank, Rajgangpur, Sundargarh

Preeti Chhanda Pattnaik Vs the Branch Manager, Puri Urban Co-Op. Bank Ltd.

Hadibandhu Mallik Vs the M.D.,Idcol and Ors.

Pranaya Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Niranjan Swain Vs General Manager, Uco Bank, Bbsr

Dhirendra Nath Sahoo Vs Osrtc Chairman-Cum-Managing Director