The court considered the compromise between the parties as a basis for allowing the condonation of delay and exemption to surrender in a criminal case.

JUDGMENT

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – I.A. No. 828 of 2017

Heard Mr. Abhishek Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashish Jha, learned A.P.P. for the State as well as Mr. Sidhant, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2.

2. This Interlocutory Application has been preferred by the petitioner for condonation of delay of 97 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 97 days of filing the revision application is hereby condoned.

4. I.A. No. 828 of 2017 stands disposed of.

I.A. No. 829 of 2017

5. This Interlocutory Application has been preferred by the petitioner for seeking exemption to surrender in terms of Rule 159 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001.

6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after dismissal of the appeal the matter has been compromised and an amount of 55,000/- has already been paid by the petitioner to the opposite party no. 2 which could be evident from the Memorandum of Settlement dated 08.12.2016.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 has accepted the factum of compromise and has submitted that he does not have any grievance against the petitioner.

8. In view of the fact that the matter has been compromised, this application is allowed and the petitioner is exempted to surrender in terms of Rule 159 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001.

9. I.A. No. 829 of 2017 stands disposed of.

Cr. Revision No. 1564 of 2016

10. This application has been directed against the Judgment dated 20.05.2016 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 114 of 2014 (T.R. No. 12 of 2015) by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, XI, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 01.05.2014 passed in Complaint Case No. 1809 of 2011 corresponding to T.R. No. 644 of 2014 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi, convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentencing him to undergo S.I. for six months and to pay a compensation of Rs. 75,000/- has been dismissed.

11. It appears that a complaint case was instituted on the allegation that the opposite party no. 2 had supplied some goods worth Rs. 50,000/- and when a cheque was given by the petitioner for Rs. 50,000/- the same was dishonored on account of in sufficient fund in the account and pursuant to service of a legal notice the complaint case was instituted. Upon taking of cognizance under section 138 of the N.I. Act trial proceeded. In course of trial the prosecution having been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts, the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under section 138 of the N.I. Act and was sentenced accordingly. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed. After the dismissal of the appeal the matter has been compromised between the parties for which reference may be made to I.A. No. 829 of 2017 which contains the Memorandum of Settlement between the parties.

12. In view of the fact that good relations have been restored between the parties and the dispute has finally been laid to rest pursuant to the Memorandum of Settlement entered into between the parties, this application on the basis of compromise is allowed and the Judgment dated 20.05.2016 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 114 of 2014 (T.R. No. 12 of 2015) by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, XI, Ranchi as well as the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 01.05.2014 passed in Complaint Case No. 1809 of 2011, corresponding to T.R. No. 644 of 2014 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi are hereby set aside.