Rajesh Kumar Dora Vs Sanatan Padhan

Instant revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned judgment at Annexure-1 in I.C.C. No.618 of 2017 followed by the decision of the Court in appeal dated 16^th April, 2024 on the grounds stated.

¶17

The petitioner stands convicted for the offence under Section 138 N.I. Act in I.C.C. Case No.618 of 2017 and the same was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.29 of 2024 at Annexure-4 by learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur.

¶18

However, in the meantime, the parties settled the dispute and in that connection, the mediation report at Flag-‘D’ has been received and the same is perused.

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

Mr. Kar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of conviction and sentence is required to be set aside as the offence under Section 138 N.I. Act is compoundable in nature, since a compromise is acceptable at any stage even before the Court in appeal or during the pendency of the revision. In support of such contention, Mr. Kar, learned counsel for the petitioner files a copy of the order of Panjab and Haryana High Court in CRR 640 of 2022 (O & M) ( M/s. Jap Interiors through its proprietor Vrs. M/s. I.S. Steel Fabrication through its proprietor ) dated 25^th April, 2022.

¶21

Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the opposite party acknowledges the compromise and settlement between the parties.

¶22

Upon perusal of the mediation report at Flag-‘D’, this Court finds that the parties have settled the differences and the balance amount of Rs.80,000/- was to be paid within two months therefrom. It is informed to the Court by Mr. Kar, learned counsel for the petitioner that the said amount has already been paid and such payment was made on 25^th August, 2025 and 2^nd September, 2025 and the same is not disputed by Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the opposite party.

¶23

Having considered the medication report and submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and regard being had to the decision in M/s. Jap Interiors through its proprietor (supra) and also the Apex Court’s judgment in B.V. Seshaiah Vrs. The State of Telengana &

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

another (2023) 2 S.C.R. 293 , this Court is of the view that the order of conviction and sentence awarded by the Court of first instance and confirmed in the appeal should be set aside in the interest of justice so as to rest the dispute for all times to come.

¶26

9. Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶27

In the result, the revision petition stands disposed of. Consequently, the impugned judgments at Annexures-1 & 4 are hereby set aside accepting joint affidavit filed by the parties as at Flag-‘E’ and the mediation report dated 23^rd July, 2025 at Flag-‘D’.

¶28

11. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

¶29

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

¶30

Alok

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Digitally Signed Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 11-Sep-2025 20:15:50

¶33

Page 3 of 3

Rajesh Kumar Dora v. Sanatan Padhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar Dora v. Sanatan Padhan

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

Nakula Sabar Vs State

Mohammad Tehsin Vs State of Odisha

Sarat Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Mir Adil Ali(Raju) Vs Udayanath Sahoo

Rajesh Kumar Dora Vs Sanatan Pradhan

Chandan Kumar Das Vs Lalit Kumar Parida