IMPORTANT POINT
Conviction of the accused can be set aside and he can be acquitted under Section320 (8) Criminal Procedure Code if the parties have compromised the dispute amicably out of the court.

Jaya Roy, J.—The petitioner has preferred this Criminal Revision Application against the judgment dated 11.06.2008 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2007 passed by Shri Uday Narayan Mishra, 2nd Additional District and Session Judge, Chaibasa whereby the judgment of conviction and sentences dated 20.2.2007 passed by Shri Nirupam Kumar Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Chaibasa, in Chaibasa Sadar P.S. case No.90 of 2001/G.R No. 485 of 2001/T.R. No. 191 of 2007 arising out of C1 Case No. 72 of 2001 by which the trial court has convicted the petitioner under section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced him S.I. for one year and further pay compensation of Rs.1,50,009 has been affirmed.

2. Short fact of the case is that the complainant opposite party No. 2 Rajeev Khirwal filed a complain petition in the Court of CJM Chaibasa and the same was registered as C1 Case No.72 of 2001. It is alleged in the said complaint petition that the complainant and the accused petitioner are very good friend. The complainant is a well reputed business man and the accused petitioner is also is a dealer of LML Vespa. On 27.04.2001 the accused petitioner came to the informant and requested him to give him a family loan of Rs. 75,000. The complainant advanced the same and kept a promissory note executed by the accused. The accused failed to refund the said amount within a month as per their understanding and after giving reminder by the complainant for the several time, the accused issued a cheque of Rs. 75,000 bearing cheque No.163488 dated 15.6.2001 drawn on Singhbhum Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Chaibasa Branch and requested the complainant not to present the cheque immediately as he will arrange the cash within the short period. As the accused did not repay the amount, the complainant after waiting till 11.10.2001, he presented the said cheque on 12.10.2001 to the Canara Bank but the same was returned with an endorsement of “Fund insufficient”. In this way, the petitioner defrauded the complainant opposite party No. 2 deliberately with mala fide intention.

3. The trial court convicted the petitioner after full trial for the charge under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced him undergo SI for one year and to pay compensation Rs. 1,50,000 to the complainant. Against the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal. After hearing the parties at length, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the aforesaid conviction and sentences passed by the trial Court.

4. Against the dismissal of the appeal, the accused petitioner preferred the instant Criminal Revision. During the pendency of the revision application complainant opposite party No. 2 appeared by executing vakalatnama in favour of Mr. Suraj Kumar Advocate and a compromise petition was filed duly signed by both the parties and supported by their respective affidavit. The said compromise petition under Section 320(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code is registered as IA No. 2632 of 2008. It was contended in the compromise petition that the dispute was settled with the intervention of the friend, relations and well wishers without any coercion, doubt and threats. It was further contended in the compromise petition that the petitioner in terms of the compromise had already paid a sum of Rs. 75,000 to the complainant opposite party No. 2 and the opposite party No. 2 has granted a receipt in respect of the said amount as full and final settlement of the claim.

5. Mr. M.K. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in view of the compromise petition and as the issues have been resolved, craves indulgence of this Court for granting exemption to the petitioner for surrendering in view of the decision reported in Jharkhand, Anil Kumar v. State of Jharkhand and Anr.1 where in the petitioner was exempted from surrendering in the similar circumstances of resolution of disputes between the parties and also on the fact that the offence under Section 138 of NI Act in which petit