Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Mr. Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.
Aruneshwar Verma - Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Rev. No. 519 of 2017
Decided On : 18-07-2017
Compromise - Criminal Revision - The court allowed the petitioner's application for exemption from surrender and condonation of delay due to the compromise between the parties, setting aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought exemption from surrender and condonation of delay due to a compromise between the parties. The court allowed the applications and set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the matter had been compromised between the parties, and therefore exempted the petitioner from surrender and condoned the delay, setting aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence.
Issues: Exemption from surrender, condonation of delay, compromise between parties
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the compromise between the parties as an exceptional circumstance, leading to the exemption from surrender and condonation of delay.
Final Decision: The court allowed the applications for exemption from surrender and condonation of delay, setting aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence.
JUDGMENT
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - I.A. No. 4843 of 2017
This interlocutory application has been preferred by the petitioner for exempting him to surrender in terms of rule 159 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules.
2. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter has been compromised between the parties and full and final settlement has been made by handing over a draft of Rs. 85,000/- to the opposite party no. 2 which fact has been conceded by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
3. In view of the fact that the matter has been compromised between the parties and the same being an exceptional circumstance the petitioner is exempted to surrender in terms of rule 159 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules.
4. I.A. No. 4843 of 2017 is allowed and disposed of.
I.A. No. 4844 of 2017
5. This interlocutory application has been preferred by the petitioner for condonation of delay of 702 days in filing the revision application.
6. Having been satisfied with the reasons assigned in the instant application and the fact that the matter has been compromised between the parties, this application is allowed and the delay of 702 days in filing the revision application is, hereby, condoned.
7. I.A. No. 4844 of 2017 is allowed and disposed of.
Cr. Rev. No. 519 of 2017
8. Heard Mr. Pawan Kr. Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Naresh Prasad Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2.
9. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 10.02.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - XIII, Dhanbad in Cr. Appeal No. 153 of 2012 whereby and where under the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court in C.P. Case No. 1305 of 2006 on 21.04.2012 seeking the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year as well as to pay an amount of Rs. 1,31,416/- as compensation to the opposite party no. 2 has been affirmed.
10. At the out set, it has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter has been compromised between the parties and the amount which has been agreed upon to the tune of Rs. 85,000/- has already been returned to the opposite party no. 2 by way of a bank draft. Learned counsel submits that since good sense has prevailed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court deserves to be set aside.
11. Mr. Naresh Prasad Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2, has accepted the factum of compromise and has stated that he does not have any objection if the judgment and conviction is set aside as his grievance has already been redressed on account of receiving an amount of Rs. 85,000/- from the petitioner.
12. The petitioner was being prosecuted in a case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as on account of the transaction between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 some outstanding dues were left to be paid to the opposite party no. 2 for which two cheques amounting to Rs. 85,000/- and Rs. 45,416/- were handed over which on being presented were dishonoured which led to institution of a complaint case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
13. The petitioner was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad on 21.04.2012 and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year as also to pay the compensation of Rs. 1,31,416/-. The petitioner preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 153 of 2012 which however was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XIII, Dhanbad on 10.02.2015.
14. Perusal of I.A. No. 5751 of 2017 reveals that the matter has been compromised between the parties and in terms of the compromises so arrived at the amount of Rs. 85,000/- has already been handed over by the petitioner
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
