Allowed¶25

Arun Kumar Ojha v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC3 Sept 2025CRLREV/104/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court Cuttack; CRLREV No.104 of 2025; Arun Kumar Ojha v. State of Odisha; R.K. Pattanaik J.; order dated 03.09.2025; Section 138 NI Act cheque dishonour conviction; ICC Case No.218 of 2010 SDJM Jagatsinghpur; Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2011 Annexure-3 confirmation; joint affidavit compromise between parties; compoundable offence; B.V. Seshaiah v. State of Telangana (2023) 2 SCR 293 relied on; conviction and sentence set aside; revision allowed; Annexures-1 and 3 set aside; IAs disposed.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed; as a necessary corollary, the impugned judgments at Annexures-1 and 3 (orders of conviction and sentence) set aside in light of B.V. Seshaiah (supra); IAs disposed of accordingly; urgent certified copy ordered as per rules. ¶25

Arun Kumar Ojha Vs State of Odisha — Cheque Dishonour | Orissa HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether, in view of the mutual settlement/compromise between the parties recorded in a joint affidavit, the order of conviction and sentence under Section 138 NI Act (confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2011) should be set aside.

¶22

Court's answer

An offence under Section 138 of the NI Act is compoundable in nature, and a compromise has been arrived at between the parties.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

Accepting the joint affidavit filed by the parties recording their mutual settlement, and having regard to the compoundable nature of the offence and the Apex Court decision in B.V. Seshaiah, the order of conviction and sentence awarded against the petitioner should be set aside.

¶23

Key takeaways

As the parties have settled their differences and reached a compromise supported by the joint affidavit, the order of conviction and sentence confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2011 deserves to be set aside.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (CRLREV No.104 of 2025, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, order dated 03.09.2025, R.K. Pattanaik, J.) - Petitioner convicted under Section 138 NI Act in ICC Case No.218 of 2010 (S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur), conviction and sentence confirmed by judgment at Annexure-3 in Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2011 - Before the High Court, parties filed a joint affidavit recording a mutual settlement/compromise, accepted and taken on record - Offence under Section 138 NI Act noted as compoundable - Relying on the Apex Court decision in B.V. Seshaiah Vrs. The State of Telangana and another, (2023) 2 SCR 293, and accepting the joint affidavit, the Court set aside the order of conviction and sentence confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2011 - Revision petition allowed; impugned judgments at Annexures-1 and 3 set aside; IAs disposed of accordingly.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLREV No.104 of 2025

¶3

Arun Kumar Ojha …. Petitioner

¶4

M/s. S. Mohanty, Advocate and Associates

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

State of Odisha and another

¶7

…. Opposite Parties

¶8

Mr. S.K. Swain, AGA Mr. K.T. Mudali, Advocate for O.P. No.2

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

03.09.2025

Order No.

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶16

Instant revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned judgment as at Annexure-3 in Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2011 confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed in ICC Case No.218 of 2010 by the court of learned S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur on the grounds stated.

¶17

Today, a joint affidavit is filed by the parties stating therein the fact of compromise between them and the same is accepted and taken on record.

¶18

Referring to the joint affidavit, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that there has been a mutual settlement arrived at, hence, therefore, the revision is to be disposed of accordingly with appropriate orders.

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

The petitioner stands convicted for an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act.

¶21

On a bare reading of the joint affidavit, it is made to understand that the parties have reached at a settlement mutually.

¶22

An offence under Section 138 of the NI Act is compoundable in nature. A compromise since has been arrived at between the parties, it is submitted that the order of conviction and sentence in ICC Case No.218 of 2010 is required to be set aside in the interest of justice.

¶23

As the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act is compoundable and in view of the decision of the Apex Court in B.V. Seshaiah Vrs. The State of Telangana and another (2023) 2 SCR 293 , the Court is of the view that accepting the joint affidavit filed today, the order of conviction and sentence awarded against the petitioner should be set aside. It is reiterated that as the parties have settled the differences and reached at a compromise and in support of such settlement, the joint affidavit is filed, the Court is of the conclusion the order of conviction and sentence confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2011 deserves to be set aside.

¶24

9. Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶25