Back
2017 Supreme(Jhk) 1942
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Mr. Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.
Kapil Deo Prasad Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Revision No. 581 of 2017
Decided On : 16-06-2017
Mr. Jyoti Prasad Sinha, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Mr. Arpit Kumar, Advocate, for the Opposite Party No. 2
The court considered the compromise between the parties as an exceptional circumstance and allowed the delay condonation and exemption from surrender.
Headnote:
Delay Condonation - Criminal Revision - The court allowed the delay of 565 days in filing the revision application based on the reasons assigned in the application. The petitioner was also exempted from surrendering due to the compromise between the parties.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an Interlocutory Application for condoning the delay of 565 days in filing the revision application and another application for exempting the petitioner from surrendering due to a compromise between the parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the delay and exempted the petitioner from surrendering based on the compromise between the parties.
Issues: Delay condonation, exemption from surrender, setting aside of judgment and order of conviction and sentence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the compromise between the parties as an exceptional circumstance and allowed the delay condonation and exemption from surrender. The judgments and orders of conviction and sentence were set aside due to the restoration of good relations between the parties.
Final Decision: The delay in filing the revision application was allowed, the petitioner was exempted from surrender, and the judgments and orders of conviction and sentence were set aside.
JUDGMENT
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – I.A. No. 3620 of 2017
Heard Mr. Jyoti Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Arpit Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
2. This Interlocutory Application has been preferred by the petitioner for condoning the delay of 565 days in filing the revision application.
3. Having been satisfied with the reasons assigned in the instant application, the same is allowed and the delay of 565 days in filing the revision application is, hereby, condoned.
I.A.(Cr.) No. 3621 of 2017
4. This Interlocutory Application has been preferred by the petitioner for exempting the petitioner to surrender in terms of Rule 159 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001.
5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter has been compromised between the parties and a joint compromise petition by way of I.A. (Cr.) No. 4033 of 2017 has also been filed from which it appears that entire dishonored cheque amount has already been returned back to the opposite party no. 2.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has accepted the factum of compromise and stated that he does not have any grievance if the present application of the petitioner is allowed.
7. Considering the fact that the matter has been compromised between the parties and the same being an exceptional circumstance while allowing I.A. (Cr.) No. 3621 of 2017 the petitioner is exempted to surrender in terms of Rule 159 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001.
Cr. Revision No. 581 of 2017
8. This application has been preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 06.07.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Appeal No. 01 of 2015 whereby and where-under the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in G.R. Case No. 612 of 2012, corresponding to T.R. No. 1794 of 2014 by virtue of which the petitioner had been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months as also compensation of Rs. 4,50,000/- has been affirmed.
9. It appears that a complaint case was instituted by the opposite party no. 2 on the allegation that a friendly loan of Rs. 4,50,000/- was taken by the petitioner for some personal work and in view of the same three cheques were handed over to the complainant. Further allegation has been levelled that on the due date the cheques were presented but all the cheques were dishonored due to insufficiency of funds and after a legal notice was issued to the petitioner and the amount having not been returned back to the complainant a Complaint Case was filed which was subsequently referred to the Police u/s 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. leading to registration of G.R. Case No. 612 of 2012.
10. It appears from I.A.(Cr.) No. 4033 of 2017 that the matter has been compromised between the parties and the amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- which was the subject matter of the criminal case has already been returned back to the opposite party no. 2 by way of draft and receipt in favour of the petitioner has also been issued by the opposite party no. 2. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that since the matter has finally been settled between the parties he does not have any objection if the judgment and order of conviction and sentence and its subsequent affirmation of appeal is set aside.
11. In view of the fact that good relations have been restored by the parties leading to returning back the amount in question while allowing this application the impugned judgment dated 18.12.2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in G.R. Case No. 612 of 2012, corresponding to T.R. No. 1794 of 2014 and the judgment dated 06.07.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Appeal No. 01 of 2015 are, hereby set aside.
12. This application stands allowed.
13. Pending I.As. also stand disposed of.
