IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI ----

Om Prakash Barnwal, son of Late D.P. Barnwal, resident of Prakash Battery, Mahuda Bazar, PO and PS – Mahuda, District –

Dhanbad .... Petitioner -- Versus --

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. B Nok Raju @ Balasitu Nok Raju, son of Late B.V. Rao, resident of T-21/3 Mahuda Railway Colony, PO and PS – Mahuda, District –

Dhanbad .... Opposite Parties ----

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ---

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Nawin Kr. Singh, Advocate For O.P. No.2 :- Mr. Kumar Nilesh, Advocate ----

21/08.12.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2.

2. This petition has been filed challenging the conviction and sentence dated 22.02.2016 passed by learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Dhanbad in Cr. Appeal No.152 of 2015 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been allowed in part by acquitting the petitioner for the charge under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and awarded punishment to pay compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- to the complainant as also against the conviction and sentence dated 06.08.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No.310 of 2013/T.R. No.476 of 2015 convicting and sentencing the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and awarded punishment of simple imprisonment of one year and also order to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- within one month to the complainant.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the matter is arising under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and now compromise has taken place between the petitioner and the complainant. He further submits that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- has already been received by the petitioner/complainant from the accused/opposite party No.2. He then submits that he has been told by learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 that he has come forward with bank draft of Rs.75,000/-. He next submits that if the said draft is being paid to the petitioner, then the matter can be over and it can be disposed of.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the matter is arising under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 submits that compromise has taken place between the petitioner and the opposite party No.2 and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- has already been paid to the petitioner. He further submits that he has come forward with a bank draft to the tune of Rs.75,000/- in the name of the petitioner and he is ready to hand-over the same to the petitioner in the court’s proceeding.

6. In the midst of the proceeding, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 has handed over the bank draft of Rs.75,000/- to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner will hand-over the said bank draft to the complainant/petitioner.

7. In view of above and considering that the matter is arising under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and that is compoundable under Section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the matter is allowed to be compounded between the parties.

8. Reference may be made to the case of New Win Export and Another versus A. Subramaniam reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 1741, wherein at paragraph Nos.6 and 7 it has been held as under:-

“6. At this juncture, we would also like to reiterate a few words regarding the principles of compounding of offences in the context of NI Act. It is to be remembered that dishonour of cheques is a regulatory offence which was made an offence only in view of public interest so that the reliability of these instruments can be ensured. A large number of cases involving dishonour of cheques are pending before courts which is a serious concern for our judicial system. Keeping in mind that the ‘compensatory aspect’ of remed