IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Swapan Kumar Sarkar @ Sapan Kumar Sarkar, aged about 54 years, son of Late Amar Chand Sarkar, resident of Railway Quarter No.J/17/2, Chakradharpur, P.O. & P.S. Chakradharpur, District- West Singhbhum … Petitioner -Versus-

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, S/o Late Ramdeo Mishra, resident of Railway Quarter No.0/98/1, Porter Kholi, Ward No.11, P.O. & P.S. Chakdradharpur, District- West Singhbhum … Opposite Parties -----

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vijoy Kumar Sinha, A.P.P.

For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Praveen Shankar Prasad, Advocate -----

05/08.12.2025 Heard Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Vijoy Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the State and Mr. Praveen Shankar Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the complainant/

opposite party no.2.

2. This criminal revision petition has been filed challenging the judgment dated 24.07.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Chaibasa in Complaint Case No.14/2022 (T.R.No.125/2023), whereby, the petitioner has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and six months and fine of Rs.9,80,000/- as compensation to be paid to the complainant as per Section 143(1) (Proviso) N.I. Act read with Section 357(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure within two months of passing of the sentence and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner has been further sentenced to undergo S.I. for two months and in non-payment of the compensation amount within time, it was further ordered that the amount shall be recovered under the provisions of Section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the amount of Rs.25,000/- which has been paid by the petitioner to the complainant at the time of mediation will be adjusted in the fine amount. The petitioner has further challenged the judgment dated 11.03.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Criminal Appeal No.98/2023, whereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment passed by the learned trial court has been affirmed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the matter is arising out of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. He further submits that now a good sense has prevailed between the parties and both have compromised the matter. He then submits that I.A. No.2840 of 2025 has been filed for joint compromise between the petitioner and complainant/ opposite party no.2. He next submits that in light of the compromise reached between the parties, it has been settled that the petitioner will pay a sum of Rs.7,25,000/- to the complainant. He also submits that the sum of Rs.5,25,000/- has already been paid by the petitioner to the complainant. He submits that in light of the compromise, the sum of Rs.10,000/- per month, as rest of the amount, is being paid to the complainant and till date further amount of Rs.80,000/- has been paid in light of the compromise. On these grounds, he submits that the joint compromise petition may kindly be allowed as the matter is compoundable in light of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that in light of the joint compromise petition, it transpires that both the parties have compromised the matter.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant, who is opposite party no.2 herein accepts the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and submits that sum of Rs.5,25,000/- and further Rs.80,000/- has been paid by the petitioner to the complaint and rest of the amount is being paid by the petitioner per month. He further submits that in view of the compromise and the amount is being paid, the complainant does not want to proceed with the matter.

6. When the parties have compromised the matter an