SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Jhk) 2244

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Arjun Sahu, aged about 32 years son of Bhagwat Sahu – Appellant 
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr. Revision No. 1217 of 2025
Decided On : 23-12-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Faiz ur Rahman, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, Advocate Mr. Avinash Kumar, Advocate

The offence of cheque dishonour is compoundable. Courts are encouraged to prioritize the compensatory nature of the remedy over punitive measures. Upon voluntary settlement between parties, compounding should be permitted, leading to the acquittal of the accused and the setting aside of previous convictions.

Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 and 147 - Dishonour of cheque - Compounding of offence - Parties arriving at a compromise - Court’s duty to encourage compounding as compensatory aspect takes priority over punitive aspect - Once compromise is reached, courts should facilitate compounding of offences to serve public interest and ensure effective remedy - Petitioner acquitted following settlement. (Paras 6, 7, 10, 11, 12)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Condonation of delay - Revision petition - Delay of 164 days in filing - Condoned in view of the compromise reached between the parties and non-objection of the prosecution. (Paras 2, 4)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged a conviction and sentence under the law governing dishonoured cheques, which was affirmed by the appellate court. During the pendency of the criminal revision petition, the parties entered into a voluntary compromise, and the petitioner provided the settlement amount to the complainant.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the offence is inherently compoundable under the enabling legal provisions. Given that the parties had settled their dispute, the complainant received the agreed compensation, and the prosecution raised no objection, the court found it appropriate to permit the compounding of the offence rather than pursuing the punitive path.

Issues: The central issue was whether the conviction and sentence for the offence of dishonour of a cheque could be set aside upon the amicable settlement and compounding agreement reached between the accused and the complainant.

Ratio Decidendi: Courts are mandated to encourage the compounding of cheque dishonour offences because the legislative purpose emphasizes the compensatory aspect of the remedy over punitive consequences, especially when the parties have resolved the underlying dispute through mutual settlement.

Result: Revision petition allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; petitioner acquitted and discharged of liability.

Table of Content
1. condonation of delay for filing revision petition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. parties reaching settlement in section 138 ni act dispute. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. compounding of offences under section 147 ni act. (Para 10 , 12)
4. final acquittal and disposal of revision petition. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)

JUDGMENT :

I.A. No.16106 of 2025 has been filed for condonation of delay of 164 days occurred in preferring the instant criminal revision petition.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 29.7.2025 and he was trying to compromise the matter and in view of that such delay has occurred and finally the compromised is reached.

3. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondent State as well as the O.P.No.2 have got no serious objection if the said delay is condoned.

4. For the reasons assigned and in view of the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the said delay of 164 days occurred in preferring the instant revision petition is, hereby, condoned and the instant I.A. meant for condonation of delay is allowed and disposed.

5. I.A. No.16107 of 2025 has been filed for suspension of sentence and to enlarge the petitioner on bail during pendency of this revision petition.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this criminal revision petition has been preferred for setting aside the judgment dated 19.03.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.85 of 2024 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner -XV, Ranchi by which the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment dated 27.2.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No.3845 of 2022 has been confirmed and by the said judgment the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo SI for a period of six months and fine of Rs.One lac which has to be paid as compensation to the complainant and in case of non-payment of fine, further direction is there to further undergo SI for three months and the period already undergone by the convict in custody, if any, will be set-off.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter is arising under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and that is compoundable in light of section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He further submits that a good sense has prevailed between the parties and both of them have compromised the matter and a compromise petition in the form of I.A. No.17369 of 2025 has been filed. On instruction, he next submits that, he has come forward with a Bank Draft of Rs.One lac in terms of the settlement as well as the direction of the learned court and is ready to hand over the same to the learned counsel appearing for the O.P.No.2. He then submits in view of that the petitioner may kindly be exonerated and put at liberty.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent State submits that it appears that the compromise is there and the matter is arising out of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

9. Learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 accepts the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. He further submits that the I.A. is filed for compromise which has been affidavited separately by both the sides and he further submits that the total consideration amount has been agreed to be paid to the complainant. He further submits that he is ready to accept the said Bank Draft in favour of the O.P.No.2 and the same will be handed over by him to the complainant/ O.P.No.2. He next submits that he has instruction that the matter may kindly be disposed of.

10. In view of above and considering that the matter is arising out of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which is compoundable under section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and both the parties have compromised the matter and in view of that, the prayer made in the I.A meant for compromise is allowed. 11. A reference may be made to the case ofNew Win Export and Another Vs. A. Subramaniam” rep

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top