Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 673 (JHR)

Sunita Kumari v. State of Jharkhand

2017-04-11

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
1. Heard Mr. Deepak Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H. K. Shikarwar, learned counsel, appearing for the opposite party No. 2. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 13.10.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XII, Hazaribag in Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2012, whereby and whereunder, the appeal, preferred against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 28.09.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in C. Case No. 1912 of 2010 (T.R. No. 220 of 2012), convicting the petitioner for the offences punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and sentencing her to undergo S.I. of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, has been dismissed. 3. It appears that a complaint case was filed by the opposite party No. 2, stating therein that an agreement for sale of a piece of land was entered into pursuant to which an amount of Rs. 50,000/-was received by the opposite party No. 2 and a cheque of Rs. 2,50,000/-was also issued, but the petitioner failed to execute the sale deed and on demand of return of the cheque, a cheque No. 910107 dated 31.07.2010 was issued, which however was dishonoured on account of insufficient fund. 4. Consequent to the institution of the complaint, upon conducting enquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C., cognizance was taken. The case was tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh and in course of trial since the prosecution established its case beyond all reasonable doubt, the petitioner was convicted u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced accordingly. The appeal being Cr. Appeal No 143 of 2015 preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-XII, Hazaribag vide judgment dated 13.10.2015. 5. At the outset it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter has been settled between the parties. It has also been submitted that two persons were sent up for trail including the petitioner and out of the alleged amount of Rs. 3 Lakhs, the petitioner was liable to pay an amount of Rs. 1.5 Lakhs which he has returned back to the opposite party No. 2 along with fine amount of Rs. 10,000/-. 6. The aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been accepted by Mr. 3 Lakhs, the petitioner was liable to pay an amount of Rs. 1.5 Lakhs which he has returned back to the opposite party No. 2 along with fine amount of Rs. 10,000/-. 6. The aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been accepted by Mr. H. K. Shikarwar, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2, who has further submitted that the opposite party No. 2 has no objection if the judgment of conviction and sentence and subsequent affirmation in appeal is set aside, as the matter has been compromised between the parties and an amount of Rs. 1.60 Lakhs has been received by the opposite party No. 2. In support of their submissions, learned counsel for the parties referred to I.A. No. 2237 of 2017, which is by way of joint compromise. 7. I.A. No. 2237 of 2017 clearly reveals that the matter has been settled between the parties and the opposite party No. 2 does not have any grievance against the petitioner and an amount of Rs. 1.60 Lakhs has been received by him on 04.04.2017, which falls in the share of the petitioner. 8. Considering the fact that the matter has been compromised, the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 28.09.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in C. Case No. 1912 of 2010 (T.R. No. 220 of 2012), convicting the petitioner for the offences punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and sentencing her to undergo S.I. of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-and subsequent affirmation in Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2012 vide judgment dated 13.10.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XII, Hazaribag, are hereby quashed and set aside. This application is allowed and the pending I.A. stands also disposed of.