Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 78 (ORI)

JAGADISH PR. CHANDAK v. DEEPAK KU. JAJODIA

2011-02-04

S.K.MISHRA

body2011
ORDER S.K. Mishra, J. - The accused petitioner in 1 C.C. Case No. 2564 of 2005 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar has preferred the Criminal Revision bearing no 1201 of 2009 challenging the judgment of his conviction by the Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC No. 4, Bhubaneswar. The complainant-opposite party of the said case has preferred a Criminal Revision No. 1088 of 2007 challenging the quantum of punishment/ compensation. 2. Originally, a private complaint was initiated for the offences under Sections 420, 417, 403 of the IPC read with Section 138 of the N.I. Act. After trial, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the complainant failed to establish the charge under Sections 420, 417, 403 of the IPC and acquitted the accused-petitioner of those offences. However, finding that the offence u/s 138 of the N.I. Act has been established. The learned Magistrate went into convict the accused-petitioner and awarded sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a compensation o Rs. 4,60,000/-for the offence u/s 138 of the N.I. Act. The accused-petitioner preferred an appeal to the learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge, which was numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 34/32 of 2008-07. The appellate Court concurred with the findings of the trial Court and, therefore, dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence. 3. As stated earlier, the accused-petitioner filed a revision application challenging his conviction, whereas the complainant-opposite party filed an application assailing the quantum of compensation. 4. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the parties are likely to settle the matter on compromise. Hence, on 12.01.2001 the case was closed giving liberty to the parties to file an application for compromise within a reasonable period. In 24.01.2011, inter alia, pleading that the matter has been settled between the parties and accordingly, the petitioner has already paid the said amount to the opposite party and the opposite party admits to have received the entire amount from the petitioner. Both the accused-petitioner and the complainant-opposite party have filed affidavits, which have been annexed to the petition for compromise. 5. It is, therefore, prayed that in view of the compromise between the parties, necessary orders be passed setting aside the order of conviction of the accused-petitioner. 6. Both the accused-petitioner and the complainant-opposite party have filed affidavits, which have been annexed to the petition for compromise. 5. It is, therefore, prayed that in view of the compromise between the parties, necessary orders be passed setting aside the order of conviction of the accused-petitioner. 6. Section 147 of the N.I. Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, every offence punishable under the Act shall be compoundable. It is also settled principle that such offence u/s 138 of the N.I. Act is compoundable at any stage of proceeding but before the judgment is pronounced by the Court. 7. Thus, keeping in view the fact that the parties have settled the dispute out of the Court and they have filed a petition for compromise, the petition is allowed. The conviction recorded by the learned S.D.J.M. in the aforesaid 1.C.C. case and confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 34/32 of 2008-07 are hereby set aside. It is also ordered that since the parties have compromised, the prayer of complainant-opposite party in Criminal Revision No. 1088 of 2007 for enhancing compensation has become in fructuous. With the said observations, both the Criminal Revisions are disposed of. The Misc. Case No. 87 of 2011 is also disposed of. The accused-petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 1201 of 2009 is acquitted, he be set at liberty and the bail bond executed by him be cancelled.