The court emphasized the significance of compromise in a compoundable offence and its impact on the legal proceedings and judgment.

ORDER

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – Heard Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. K. Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel for the complainant.

2. This application is directed against the judgment, dated 20.05:2009 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 304 of 2008 by the Additional Sessions Judge FTC IV, Dhanbad by which the appeal preferred against the judgment, dated 25.09.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with C. P. Case No. 1960 of 2006 corresponding to T. R. No. 836 of 2008 convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and sentencing him to undergo S.I. for 6 months and also to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,40,000/- has been dismissed.

3. The complaint case was instituted by the opposite party No. 2 in which it was alleged that on 25.10.2006 an amount of Rs. 2,40,00/- was given to the petitioner by way of friendly loan and in lieu of loan a cheque was taken by the complainant. However, when the cheque was deposited to the bank, it was informed by the bank authorities that the signature made in the cheque did not tally with the signature of the petitioner. However, the petitioner went to the bank and put his signature on the cheque, still the cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of fund for which a legal notice was sent by the complainant and since the petitioner failed to pay the entire amount, C. P. Case No. 1960 of 2006 was instituted. Upon conducting an inquiry under Section 202 of Cr. P. C. by examining the complainant on S/A as well as his witnesses, cognizance was taken under Section 138 of N. I. Act, pursuant to which trial proceeded.

4. In course of trial, as the complainant having been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N. I. Act vide judgment, dated 25.09.2008. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner being Criminal Appeal No. 304 of 2008 which however was dismissed on 20.05.2009 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC IV, Dhanbad.

5. Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter between the petitioner and the complainant has been compromised and the entire amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- has been already returned to the complainant through a bank draft. It is stated that in view of settlement so arrived at the impugned judgments be set aside.

6. Mr. P. K. Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel for the complainant has accepted the factum of compromise as also the fact that an amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- was received by him.

7. Apart from the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears from the averments made in the joint compromise petition which is by way of interlocutory application being I.A. No. 3455 of 2017 that an amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- was paid to the complainant through bank draft bearing No. 001469 dated 18.04.2017, which the learned counsel for the complainant has accepted.

8. Since the matter between the parties has been compromised at the behest of the Well-wishers and since the offence under Section 138 of N. I. Act is a compoundable offence, the impugned judgment dated 20.05.2009 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 304 of 2008 by the Additional Sessions Judge FTC IV, Dhanbad by which the appeal preferred against the judgment dated 25.09.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with C. P. Case No. 1960 of 2006 corresponding to T. R. No. 836 of 2008 was dismissed, are hereby set aside.

9. This application is allowed.

10. I.A. No. 3455 of 2017 also stands disposed of.