2011(2) Bankmann 532 (Jhar.)
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
D. K. Sinha. J.
Krishna Prasad —Petitioner
versus
State of Jharkhand & Anr. —Respondents
Cri. Rev. No. 557 of 2010.
Decided on 21.1.2011
For the Petitioner:Ram Naresh Singh, Indrajit Sinha, B. Sinha and A.K. Sal, Advocates.
For the State: Mr. Amitabh, APP.
For the Respondent No. 2:R.K. Sinha and Dhananjay Bharati, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Offence must be compounded if complainant has no grievance against accused.
Headnote:Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 138 and 147—Dishonour of cheque—Conviction—Simple imprisonment for six months and Rs. 50.000/- by way of compensation awarded—Parties consistent that they have compromised dispute with intervention of well wishers and complainant has no longer grievance against petitioner and dispute has been amicably settled and he would have no objection if composition is accepted by court—Matter had been compromised between parties and payments had been made in full and final settlement of dues—Petitioner acquitted. (Paras 8 to 13)
D.K. Sinha, J.—This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 2.12.2009 passed by VIth Additional Judicial Commissioner (F.T.C.) Ranchi by which the conviction of the petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments act by the Court of Sri R.S. Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, 1st class. Ranchi in complaint case No. 170/2000 on 21.2.2009 was affirmed and the Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 2009 was dismissed on 2.12.2009.
2. Petitioner was held guilty under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and was directed to pay Rs. 50.000/- by way of compensation to the complainant opposite party No. 2 herein under Section 357(3) of the code of criminal Procedure for the loss suffered by him.
3. Opposite party No. 2 Harbansh singh Deol appeared in this criminal revision on receipt of the notice and filed the counter affidavit.
4. During pendency of this criminal revision, a compromise petition has been filed on 23.8.2010 wherein it has been laid down that due to intervention of the well wishers and common friends the dispute has been between the parties, as such, opposite party No. 2 has no grievance against the petitioner and under the circumstances. Opposite party No.2 is not willing now to proceed further against the petitioner as the matter has already been settled. It is requested therein to allow the present compromise petition and to pass appropriate party No. 2 Harbansh Singh Deol. In support thereof, supplementary affidavit has been field on behalf of the petitioner on 25.10.2010 stating therein that the petitioner has given cash amount to the tune of Rs. 19,500/- in the hand of the opposite party No. 2 Harbansh Singh Deol, proprietor of Deol Financers on 21.10.2010 against the receiving receipt on his pad out of the cheque amount to the type of Rs. 1,30,000. Xerox copy of the receipt issued by the opposite party No. 2 has been annexed and marked as annexure-3.
5. Opposite party No 2, in his counter affidavit, which has been filed on 3.11.2010, has stated that the dispute has been amicable settled between the parties and as such, Opposite Party No.2 is not willing to proceed with the matter further and has no objection if the impugned judgments would be set aside in view of the compromise petition, which has already been brought on the record of the Cr. Rev. No. 557 of 2010 in the form of L.A. No. 2052/10. Counter affidavit was signed and verified by the opposite party No. 2 whose signature was duly identified. Xerox copy of his Permanent Account Number (PAN)has also been annexed with the counter-affidavit.
6. By filing separate I.A. No. 2742/10 on 14.12.2010, the petitioner as well as the opposite party No. 2 herein have contended that no case is pending concerned with the instant case in any court of law and that they have already settled their dispute outside the court, contents of which have been supported by the petitioner and the opposite party No. 2 on affidavits separately.
7. By filing third I.A. No. 105/11, pursuant to the compromise petition filed earlier, it has been stated that the opposite party No.2 is not willing to proceed further in the matter in view of the compromise between the parties and that no case is pending, connecting to the issues involved in the instant case in any court of law and it is requested therein for permission to compound the offence.
8. It would be evident from the foregoing paragraphs that in all the three interlocutory applications, parties are consistent that they have compromised the dispute with the intervention of well wishers and the complainant opposite party No.2 by filing his counter affidavit has stated that he has no longer grievance against the petitioner and that the dispute has been amicably settled and that he would have no objection, if the composition would be accepted be this court, contents of the interlocutory applications have been supported on oath by the opposite party no. 2.
9.