Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1068 (JHR)

Kanika Banerjee v. State of Jharkhand

2016-07-18

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2016
ORDER : I.A. No. 2969 of 2016 Heard Mr. Syed Nausad Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. D. K. Karmakar, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2. 2. This interlocutory application has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 159 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules for exemption of surrender. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter has been compromised between the parties and in fact an amount of Rs. 2,80,000/-which was the disputed amount has been brought, by way of a drafts, by the learned counsel for the petitioner to be handed over to the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. 4. Mr. D. K. Karmakar, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2, submits that he does not have any objection for exempting the petitioner from surrender as the matter has been compromised between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2. 5. In view of the aforesaid fact, this application is allowed and the petitioner is exempted to surrender under Section 159 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules. 6. I. A. No. 2969 of 2016 is allowed and disposed of. Cr. Revision No. 571 of 2016 7. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 26.02.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner – III, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 2015 by which the judgment and order of conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been upheld. 8. It appears that a complaint case was instituted in which it was alleged that the complainant had given an amount of Rs. 4,01,000/-to the petitioner in 14.10.2011 to 10.08.2012 for the purpose of study of her son wherein after two cheques were issued to the complainant as security. It is also alleged that in course of time Rs. 1,12,000/- was paid by the petitioner to the complainant out of the amount taken as loan. However, on presentation of the cheques before the bank the same got dishonored leading to institution of the complaint case. 9. In the trial the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for eight months and to make payment of compensation of Rs. 2,80,000/-. However, on presentation of the cheques before the bank the same got dishonored leading to institution of the complaint case. 9. In the trial the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for eight months and to make payment of compensation of Rs. 2,80,000/-. The appeal which was preferred by the petitioner being Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 2015 also got dismissed on 26.02.2016. 10. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the appeal the matter has been compromised and the said fact has been mentioned at Paragraph-8 of the appellate court’s judgment. Learned counsel, however, submits that after the appeal was dismissed a draft amounting to Rs. 2,80,000/- was got prepared and which is in possession of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It has been submitted that admittedly the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 shared good relationship which has subsequently been restored and in such circumstance, the orders passed by the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court be set aside on the basis of compromise. 11. Mr. D.K. Karmakar, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2, has fairly submitted that the matter has been compromised between the parties and he has no objection if the judgment and order of conviction and sentence is set aside. 12. During the hearing of this application, Mr. Syed Nausad Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner has handed over four drafts bearing draft no. 611161, 611158, 611177 and 611159 amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 65,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively to Mr. D. K. Karmakar, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 who in turn has handed over the same to the complainant namely Smt. Madhumita Nag Choudhary who is present in person. 13. It appears that the relationship of the parties were strained prior to institution of the complaint case but subsequently good sense has prevailed and the matter has been settled which resulted in making payment of Rs. 2,80,000/-to the complainant by the petitioner. 14. 13. It appears that the relationship of the parties were strained prior to institution of the complaint case but subsequently good sense has prevailed and the matter has been settled which resulted in making payment of Rs. 2,80,000/-to the complainant by the petitioner. 14. In such circumstances, therefore, on the basis of the compromise so arrived at, this application is allowed and the order dated 27.05.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 483 of 2013 as well as the judgment dated 26.02.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner – III, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 2015 is, hereby, set aside. 15. Let the photocopy of the drafts which has been handed over to the opposite party no. 2 be kept on the record.