Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY PRASAD, J.
Om Prakash Singh, Son of Late Sabhajeet Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Revision No. 1149 of 2024
Decided on : 03-03-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420 and 406 - Criminal Revision Application - The petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence for cheating and criminal breach of trust - The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's judgment - Compromise reached with the Opposite Party leading to acquittal - Petitioner discharged from liability. (Paras 1, 12)
(B) Compromise - The parties reached a settlement whereby the Opposite Party undertook not to pursue litigation upon receipt of a demand draft - The court recognized the settlement and set aside previous judgments. (Paras 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was convicted for offences under IPC sections for cheating and criminal breach of trust, sentenced to two years of simple imprisonment and fined. An appeal was dismissed, but a subsequent compromise led to the reversal of the conviction.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the compromise between the parties, leading to the acquittal of the petitioner and discharge from all liabilities.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the compromise between the parties warranted the reversal of the conviction and sentence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the compromise was valid and recognized the Opposite Party's undertaking not to pursue further litigation, which justified the setting aside of the previous judgments.
Result: Criminal Revision Application allowed; petitioner acquitted.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY PRASAD, J.
This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 22.07.2024 passed by Ms. Namita Chandra, learned Sessions Judge-VI, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Cr. Appeal No.57 of 2024 by which the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed thereby affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.02.2024 passed by Sri Rajendra Prasad, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jamshedpur in Complaint Case No.1597 of 2018 by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offences under Section 420 and 406 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo S.I for two years and pay the fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 420 IPC and S.I for two years for the offence under Section 406 IPC .
2. It appears that vide order dated 03.10.2024 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice Ratnaker Behngra as His Lordship then was) of this Court had exempted the petitioner from surrendering before the learned Court below subject to the condition that he will deposit a Demand Draft of Rs.7,00,000/- in the name of the O.P. No.2 namely Upendra Prasad Verma in the office of the learned Registrar General.
3. It appears that the petitioner had deposited Demand Draft No.220973 dated 24.01.2025 for Rs.7,00,000/- before the learned Registrar General on 27.01.2025.
4. It appears that the said order dated 03.10.2024 was further continued by interim order dated 02.12.2024 passed by Co- ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar) of this Court and the petitioner was directed to execute bond to the satisfaction of Presiding Officer within four weeks from the date of the order i.e. 02.12.2024.
5. When the matter was on 24.02.2025, the learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 has prayed for time to seek instruction on the point of compromise.
6. It appears that the O.P. No.2 has filed I.A. No.2498 of 2025 on 25.02.2025 for release of Demand Draft of Rs.7,00,000/- drawn in favour of the O.P. No.2 with undertaking not to pursue litigation against the petitioner.
7. Paragraph No.1 to 10 of the I.A. No.2498 of 2025 read as follows:-
“Para:-1. That this Interlocutory application is being filed with a prayer to release the demand draft of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs) drawn in favour of the Opposite Party No.2 deposited in the office of Registrar General of this Hon’ble Court by the Petitioner in compliance order dated 03.10.2024 passed in I.A. No.8944 of 2024 (in Criminal Revision No.1149 of 2024), the Opposite Party No.2 hereby undertakes not to pursue the litigation against the Petitioners any further;
And/ Or
The Appellant further prays for issuance of any other order(s)/direction(s) as your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
Para-2:-That the Opposite Party No.2 has not preferred any interlocutory application save and except I.A. No.13719/2024 which is pending for adjudication before this Hon’ble Court, save and except the same the Opposite Party No.2 has not moved earlier before this Hon’ble Court with the self-same reliefs or any other reliefs.
Para-3:- That it is stated and submitted that the connected revision application has been preferred by the petitioner against the order and judgment dated 22.07.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.57 of 2024 whereby the appeal preferred by the Petitioner against the judgment dated 22.02.2024 passed in Complaint Case No.1597/2018 has been dismissed and the judgment passed in the complaint case has been upheld.
Para-4:- That it is humbly stated and submitted that Petitioner had filed an I.A being I.A. No.8944 of 2024 under Rule 159 of Jharkhand High Court Rules 2001 for granting exemption from surrender in the Learned Court Below as the Petitioner is ready to deposit the entire amount in favour of Opposite Party No.2.
Para-5:- That it is humbly stated and submitted that this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 03.10.2024 passed in I.A. No.8944 of 2024 while allowing the interlocutory application filed by the Peti
Compromise between parties can lead to acquittal and reversal of conviction under IPC sections 420 and 406.
A compromise between parties in a criminal case can lead to the acquittal of the accused if the settlement is accepted by the court.
In cases of compromise between the parties, a court may set aside a conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act if the complainant has no grievance against the accused.
The court ruled that full compliance with compensation orders allows for exemption from surrender, affirming prompt settlement can influence judicial leniency.
The court affirmed the conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, emphasizing the necessity of compensation and the legal obligation of cheque issuance.
The court granted provisional bail to the petitioner based on the circumstances of the case and custody status, requiring a deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- as a condition.
The court granted bail during a pending criminal revision considering the petitioner's custody duration while imposing conditions to prevent future offenses.
The court allows compounding of offences under the Negotiable Instrument Act in personal disputes without public policy concerns, enabling parties to resolve matters amicably.
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
