The legal principle established is that a compromise between the parties, leading to the redressal of the grievance and the return of the disputed amount, can be considered as an exceptional circumstance to exempt a petitioner from surrendering and to set aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence.

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.

I.A. No. 6942 of 2017

Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2.

2. This interlocutory application has been preferred by the petitioner for exempting to surrender in view of the compromise which has been arrived at between the parties.

3. It appears that the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under section 138 of the N.I. Act which was subsequently affirmed in appeal. However during the pendency of this revision application the matter has been compromised between the parties and the entire amount as per the terms and conditions of the compromise has also been returned back to the opposite party no. 2.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 also does not have any objection to the prayer made by the petitioner in view of the fact that the compromise has been effected between the parties which being an exceptional circumstance, the petitioner is therefore exempted to surrender in terms of Rule 159 of the Jharkhand High Court, Rules.

5. I.A. No. 6942 of 2017 stands disposed of.

Cr. Revision. No. 1078 of 2017

6. In this application, the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 29.05.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XI, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Cr. Appeal No. 172 of 2015, whereby and where under the judgment and order of conviction dated 05.12.2015 passed in C/1 Case No. 1705 of 2008 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur convicting the petitioner for the offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentencing him to undergo S.I. for one year as also to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- has been affirmed.

7. A complaint case was instituted in which it was alleged that the petitioner taking advantage of the friendly relationship he was having with the complainant has requested for financial assistance of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The complainant had given the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- on the assurance that the same shall be returned within a period of 3 to 4 months. A post dated cheque was issued by the petitioner in favour of the opposite party no. 2 but when the same was presented the same got dis-honoured on account of insufficiency of fund. Pursuant to which a legal notice was sent to the petitioner but in spite of the same when the amount was not returned back a complaint case was instituted being C/1 Case No. 1705 of 2008. Upon conducting an inquiry cognizance was taken under section 138 of the N.I. Act and trial proceeded. The learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur vide judgment dated 05.12.2015 had convicted the petitioner for the offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for one year apart from compensation amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The same was affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XI, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur on 29.05.2017 in Cr. Appeal No. 172 of 2015.

8. At the outset, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter has been compromised between the parties and the agreed amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- has already been returned back to the opposite party no. 2. It has thus been submitted that since the grievance of the opposite party no. 2 has already been redressed and the entire amount has been returned back the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence and which has been affirmed in appeal be set aside.

9. Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 has accepted the factum of compromise and has submitted that the agreed amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- has already been received by him and he does not intend to proceed further in the criminal case.

10. The agreement which was entered into between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 has been brought on record by the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party no. 2 from which it appears that both the parties had agreed to settle the issue for an amoun