Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1188 (JHR)

Aruneshwar Verma v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-07-18

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - I.A. No. 4843 of 2017 This interlocutory application has been preferred by the petitioner for exempting him to surrender in terms of rule 159 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules. 2. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter has been compromised between the parties and full and final settlement has been made by handing over a draft of Rs. 85,000/- to the opposite party no. 2 which fact has been conceded by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. 3. In view of the fact that the matter has been compromised between the parties and the same being an exceptional circumstance the petitioner is exempted to surrender in terms of rule 159 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules. 4. I.A. No. 4843 of 2017 is allowed and disposed of. I.A. No. 4844 of 2017 5. This interlocutory application has been preferred by the petitioner for condonation of delay of 702 days in filing the revision application. 6. Having been satisfied with the reasons assigned in the instant application and the fact that the matter has been compromised between the parties, this application is allowed and the delay of 702 days in filing the revision application is, hereby, condoned. 7. I.A. No. 4844 of 2017 is allowed and disposed of. Cr. Rev. No. 519 of 2017 8. Heard Mr. Pawan Kr. Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Naresh Prasad Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2. 9. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 10.02.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - XIII, Dhanbad in Cr. Appeal No. 153 of 2012 whereby and where under the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court in C.P. Case No. 1305 of 2006 on 21.04.2012 seeking the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year as well as to pay an amount of Rs. 1,31,416/- as compensation to the opposite party no. 2 has been affirmed. 10. At the out set, it has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter has been compromised between the parties and the amount which has been agreed upon to the tune of Rs. 1,31,416/- as compensation to the opposite party no. 2 has been affirmed. 10. At the out set, it has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter has been compromised between the parties and the amount which has been agreed upon to the tune of Rs. 85,000/- has already been returned to the opposite party no. 2 by way of a bank draft. Learned counsel submits that since good sense has prevailed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court deserves to be set aside. 11. Mr. Naresh Prasad Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2, has accepted the factum of compromise and has stated that he does not have any objection if the judgment and conviction is set aside as his grievance has already been redressed on account of receiving an amount of Rs. 85,000/- from the petitioner. 12. The petitioner was being prosecuted in a case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as on account of the transaction between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 some outstanding dues were left to be paid to the opposite party no. 2 for which two cheques amounting to Rs. 85,000/- and Rs. 45,416/- were handed over which on being presented were dishonoured which led to institution of a complaint case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 13. The petitioner was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad on 21.04.2012 and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year as also to pay the compensation of Rs. 1,31,416/-. The petitioner preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 153 of 2012 which however was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XIII, Dhanbad on 10.02.2015. 14. Perusal of I.A. No. 5751 of 2017 reveals that the matter has been compromised between the parties and in terms of the compromises so arrived at the amount of Rs. 85,000/- has already been handed over by the petitioner to the opposite party no. 2 through demand draft which fact has been accepted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and good relation seems to have also been restored between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2. 15. 85,000/- has already been handed over by the petitioner to the opposite party no. 2 through demand draft which fact has been accepted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and good relation seems to have also been restored between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2. 15. In such circumstance, therefore, this application is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 10.02.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XIII, Dhanbad in Cr. Appeal No. 153 of 2012 and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court in C.P. Case No. 1305 of 2006 on 21.04.2012 are, hereby, set aside.