Apan Kumar Dey v. Harinarayan Sahu

Orissa HC15 Sept 2025CRLREV/157/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Search terms: Section 138 NI Act compoundable; revisional jurisdiction setting aside conviction; settlement through High Court Mediation Centre; B.V. Seshaiah Vrs. State of Telangana & another 2023(II) SCR 293; Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2015; I.C.C. Case No. 192 of 2007; learned Sessions Judge, Balasore; statutory deposit release Rs. 75,000; I.A. No. 1010 of 2025; CRLREV Orissa High Court 2025; cheques Rs. 3.75 lac.

What did the court decide?

Revision disposed of: order of conviction and sentence in I.C.C. Case No. 192 of 2007 and the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2015 set aside; statutory deposit of Rs. 75,000/- to be disbursed to the opposite party upon proper application. ¶¶19

Apan Kumar Dey Vs Harinarayan Sahu — Cheque Dishonour | Orissa HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court exercising revisional jurisdiction can set aside the order of conviction and sentence in I.C.C. Case No. 192 of 2007 (Section 138 NI Act), confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2015, in view of the settlement reached between the parties through mediation.

¶¶17

Court's answer

The offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act being compoundable, and given the settlement reached through successful mediation, this Court exercising revisional jurisdiction found it a fit case to set aside the order of conviction and sentence awarded and confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2015, keeping in view the settled legal position reiterated by the Apex Court in B.V. Seshaiah Vrs. State of Telangana & another, 2023(II) SCR 293.

¶¶17

Ratio / Principle

The revision petition stands disposed of with the order of conviction and sentence in I.C.C. Case No. 192 of 2007 set aside, and also the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2015.

¶¶19

Key takeaways

The statutory deposit of Rs. 75,000/- lying before the court below is directed to be disbursed in favour of the opposite party upon his proper application, in view of the settlement and I.A. No. 1010 of 2025 filed by him.ratio¶¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, CRLREV No.157 of 2023, Mr. Justice R.K. Pattanaik, order dated 15.09.2025 — Revision arising out of a conviction for an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in I.C.C. Case No. 192 of 2007, which had been confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2015. Mediation at the High Court Mediation Centre having succeeded (original cheques of Rs. 3.75 lac handed over to counsel for the opposite party; I.A. No. 1010 of 2025 filed for release of the statutory deposit of Rs. 75,000/-), and keeping in view the settled legal position reiterated by the Apex Court in B.V. Seshaiah Vrs. State of Telangana & another, 2023(II) SCR 293, the Court held the Section 138 offence compoundable and, exercising revisional jurisdiction, set aside the order of conviction and sentence together with the appellate judgment, disposing of the revision petition, and directed that the statutory deposit of Rs. 75,000/- be disbursed to the opposite party upon a proper application.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLREV No.157 of 2023

¶3

Apan Kumar Dey …. Petitioner

¶4

M/sr. S.K. Panda, Advocate & Associates

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

Harinarayan Sahu …. Opposite Party M/s. Chandrakanta Nayak, Advocate & Associates

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

15.09.2025

Order No.

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶14

Perused the mediation report at flag-A. As per the said report, the mediation between the parties has been successful.

¶15

Today, the cheques in original are produced in compliance of the mediation reached at, which are handed over to Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the opposite party in Court. As per the mediation, the payment was to be made in phasewise but the cheques are produced for an amount of Rs. 3.75 lac with an understanding that the statutory deposit lying before the learned court below to be released in favour of the opposite party. In fact, I.A. No. 1010 of 2025 is filed today seeking release of the amount of statutory deposit of Rs. 75,000/- in favour of the opposite party since there has been a settlement reached at the High Court Mediation Centre with a report received at flag-A. Memo is filed towards receipt of the original cheques duly acknowledged by Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for opposite party.

¶16

Page 1 of 2

¶17

Under the above circumstances, the Court is of the humble view that the order of conviction in I.C.C. Case No. 192 of 2007 is required to be set aside though confirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore such is the view of the Court keeping in view the settled legal position reiterated by the Apex Court in B.V. Seshaiah Vrs. State of Telangana & another 2023(II) SCR 293 . In other words, it is a fit case, where, considering the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act to be compoundable, the Court exercising revisional jurisdiction is in favour of and inclined to set aside the order of conviction and sentence awarded and confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2015.

¶18

5. Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶19

In the result, the revision petition stands disposed of with the order of conviction and sentence in I.C.C. Case No. 192 of 2007 being set aside and also the judgment the Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2015 for the reasons stated hereinabove. It is directed that in view of the understanding between the parties and since I.A. No. 1010 of 2025 is filed by the opposite party, it is further directed that the statutory deposit of Rs. 75,000/- shall be disbursed in his favour upon receiving a proper application in that regard.

¶20

A certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.

¶21

Signature Not Verified

¶22

Digitally Signed Signed by: KABITARANI MAJHI Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 16-Sep-2025 12:13:59Kabita

¶23

Page 2 of 2

Apan Kumar Dey v. Harinarayan Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Apan Kumar Dey v. Harinarayan Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satyanarayan Nayak Vs Bhaskar Jyoti Sharma,Chairman Cum M.D Optcl

Basanta@Basanta Kumar Mallick Vs Khagendra Prasad Behera

Kishore Chandra Mallick Vs Anu Garg,Ias

Rudra Prasad Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Satyendra Kumar Vs Union of India

Anita Nayak Vs Krishna Kumari Jena