Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 897 (JHR)

Mukesh Kumar Baranwal v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-06-07

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
ORDER Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – I.A. No. 4228 of 2017 This application has been preferred by the petitioner for exempting the petitioner to surrender in terms of Rule 159 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules. 2. It appears that the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which was affirmed in appeal. Subsequently, however, the matter has been compromised between the parties, which is reflected in the compromise petition, which has been filed by way of I.A No. 4229 of 2017. 3. In view of the fact that the matter has been compromised between the parties and there is no objection on the part of the opposite party no. 2, this application is allowed and the petitioner is exempted to surrender in terms of Rule 159 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules. 4. I.A. No. 4228 of 2017 is disposed of. Cr. Rev No. 179 of 2017 5. Heard the parties. 6. This application has been preferred by the petitioner against the judgement dated 2.12.2016, passed in Cr. Appeal No. 41 of 2016 by the learned District Judge-cum-Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Spl Judge, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with Complaint Case No. 1730 of 2008 on 9.2.2016 convicting the petitioner for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing him to undergo S.I. for one year as well as to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- has been affirmed. 7. At the outset, Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the matter has been compromised between the parties and a joint compromise petition has been preferred, which is by way of I.A No. 4229 of 2017. Learned counsel submits that an amount of Rs.44,302/- has already been returned back to the opposite party no. 2, which has been accepted by him. 8. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 has accepted the factum of compromise and has submitted that he does not have any objection if the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court and affirmed in appeal is set aside. 9. It appears that a complaint case was instituted on the allegation that a cheque of Rs.44,302/- was given by the petitioner to the opposite party no. 9. It appears that a complaint case was instituted on the allegation that a cheque of Rs.44,302/- was given by the petitioner to the opposite party no. 2 in lieu of purchase of goods, which however on presentation to the bank was dishonored on account of insufficiency of fund, which led to issuance of legal notice and in spite of the said notice, when the amount was not returned back to the opposite party no. 2, opposite party no. 2 did not have any option but to file a complaint case. In the complaint case, after cognizance was taken, trial proceeded and the complainant having able to establish his case beyond all reasonable doubt led to conviction of the petitioner for the offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act and he was sentenced to undergo a simple imprisonment for one year along with compensation of Rs.50,000/-. The petitioner preferred an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 41 of 2016, which however was dismissed by the learned District Judge-cum-Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Spl Judge, Dhanbad on 2.12.2016. After the revision application was preferred by the petitioner, matter has been compromised between the parties which is reflected in I.A. No. 4229 of 2017, which contains an agreement between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 and from which it can be deduced that an amount of Rs.44,302/- has been returned back by the petitioner to the opposite party no. 2. It further appears from the averments made in the interlocutory application and from the submissions made by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 that he does not have any grievance against the petitioner in view of the fact that the amount in question has already been received by him. 10. On consideration of the aforesaid fact and in view of the compromise so arrived at while allowing this application, the judgement dated 2.12.2016, passed in Cr. Appeal No. 41 of 2016 by the learned District Judge-cum-Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Spl Judge, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with Complaint Case No. 1730 of 2008 on 9.2.2016 convicting the petitioner for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing him to undergo S.I. for one year as well as to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- has been affirmed, is set aside. 11. 11. Pending I.As, stand disposed of.