Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1474 (JHR)

Sudarshan Poddar v. State of Jharkhand

2008-12-18

JAYA ROY

body2008
JUDGMENT : The petitioner has preferred this Criminal Revision application against the judgment dated 11.6.2008 passed in Criminal Appeal No.2 of 2007 passed by Shri Uday Narayan Mishra, 2nd Additional District and Session Judge, Chaibasa whereby the judgment of conviction and sentences dated 20.2.2007 passed by Shri Nirupam Kumar Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class Chaibasa, in Chaibasa Sadar P.S.Case No.90 of 2001 /G.R No.485 of 2001 / T.R.No 191 of 2007 arising out of C/1 Case No.72 of 2001 by which the trial court has convict ed the petitioner under section 138 of N.I.Act and sentenced him S.I. for one year and further pay compensation of Rs.1,50,009/-has been affirmed. 2. Short fact of the case is that the complainant opposite party no.2 Rajeev Khirwal filed a Complain Petition in the court of C.J.M. Chaibasa and the same was registered as C/1 Case No.72 of 2001. It is alleged in the said complaint petition that the complainant and the accused petitioner are very good friend. The Complainant is a well reputed business man and the accused petitioner is also is a dealer of L.M.L.Vespa. On 27.4.2001 the accused petitioner came to the informant and requested him to give him a family loan of rupees 75000/-The complainant advanced the same and kept a promissory note executed by the accused. The accused failed to refund the said amount within a month as per their understanding and after giving reminder by the complainant for the several time, the accused issued a cheque of rupees 75000/-bearing cheque No.163488 dated 15.6.2001 drawn on Singhbhum Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Chaibasa Branch and requested the complainant not to present the chaque immediately as he will arrange the cash within the short period. As the accused did not repay the amount, the complainant after waiting till 11.10.2001, he presented the said chaque No.12.10.2001 to the Canara Bank but the same was returned with an endorsement of “Fund insufficient”. In this way, the petitioner defrauded the complainant opposite party no.2 deliberately with malafide intention. 3. The trial court convicted the petitioner after full trial for the charge under section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced him undergo S.I. for one year and to pay compensation rupees 1,50,000/-to the complainant. Against the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal. 3. The trial court convicted the petitioner after full trial for the charge under section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced him undergo S.I. for one year and to pay compensation rupees 1,50,000/-to the complainant. Against the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal. After hearing the parties at length, the appellate court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the aforesaid conviction and sentences passed by the trial court. 4. Against the dismissal of the appeal, the accused petitioner preferred the instant Criminal Revision.During the pendency of the revision application complainant opposite party no.2 appeared by executing Vakalatnama in favour of Mr.Suraj Kumar Advocate and a compromise petition was filed dully signed by both the parties and supported by their respective affidavit. The said compromise petition under section 320 (6) of the Cr.P.C. is registered as I.A.No.2632 of 2008. It was contended in the compromise petition that the dispute was settled with the intervention of the friend, relations and well wishers without any coercion, doubt and the threats. It was further contended in the compromise petition that the petitioner in terms of the compromise has already paid a sum of Rupees 75000/-to the complainant opposite party no.2 and the opposite party no.2 has granted a receipt in respect of the said amount as full and final settlement of the claim. 5. Mr.M.K.Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in view of the compromise petition and as the issues have been resolved, craves indulgence of this court for granting exemption to the petitioner for surrendering, in view of the decision reported in 2008(1) East Cr.C.201 (Jhr) (Anil Kumar –Versus-State of Jharkhand & Another) wherein the petitioner was exempted from surrendering in the similar circumstances of resolution of disputes between the parties and also on the fact that the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act in which petitioner has been convicted, is compoundable under Section 147 of the Act. 6. Mr.Suraj Kumar learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 submitted that the parties have entered into an amicable settlement of the dispute and the petitioner has already paid a sum of rupees 75000/-which was accepted by the opposite party no.2. 6. Mr.Suraj Kumar learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 submitted that the parties have entered into an amicable settlement of the dispute and the petitioner has already paid a sum of rupees 75000/-which was accepted by the opposite party no.2. In view of the said circumstances the learned counsels jointly submitted that the compromise petition be allowed, petitioner be exempted from surrendering in the court below and he be acquitted in terms of the compromise under provisions of Section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon conscious consideration of the arguments advance hereinabove, the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner is set aside. The compensation amount imposed upon the petitioner has already been waived by the opposite party no.2 on accepting a sum of rupees 75000/-and granting a receipt for the same according to the terms of the compromise. 8. In that view of the matter and in terms of the agreement arrived at between the parties, the petitioner is acquitted under section 320(8) of the Cr.P.C. with the exemption to surrender in Complaint Case No.72 of 2001 corresponding to G.R.Case No. 485 of 2005 /T.R.Case No. 199 of 2007. Accordingly I.A.No. 2632 of 2008 is disposed of and this Criminal Revision is allowed.