IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Abdul Mannan, aged about 54 years,S/o Late Abdul Jabbar, R/o Kharikabad, P.O. Barwa Purv, P.S. Govindpur, Dist. Dhanbad … Petitioner -Versus-

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Syed Sahauddin Neshat, S/o Late Syed Rayajuddin Ahmad, R/o Millat Colony, Wasseypur, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Bankmore, Dist. Dhanbad … Opposite Parties -----

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Shweta Singh, A.P.P.

For O.P. No.2 : Ms. Kehkashan Afsheen, Advocate -----

13/04.02.2026 Heard Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mrs. Shweta Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State and Ms. Kehkashan Afsheen, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2.

2. This criminal revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 30.04.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No.216 of 2023, whereby, the learned Court has been pleased to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.12.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Dhanbad in Complaint Case No.3969 of 2023, whereby, the learned Court has been pleased to convict the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo S.I. for 1 year and 6 months and fine of Rs.5,50,000/-.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the matter is arising under 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 and joint compromise petition has been filed in the form of I.A. No.661 of 2026. He then submits that in terms of the compromise, entire compensation amount of Rs.5,50,000/- has been paid to the opposite party no.2/complainant. He next submits that the matter is compoundable under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and in that view of the matter, this matter can be disposed of.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the compromise is there. She further submits that the matter is arising under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

5. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2/complainant accepts the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and she submits that the said I.A. has been filed for joint compromise and the same has been filed on affidavit of both the sides separately. She further submits that total amount of compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- has already been received by the complainant and now the complainant/opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed further in the matter.

6. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and considering that the matter is arising under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, which is compoundable in light of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and both the parties have compromised the matter and in that view of the matter, the said I.A., meant for joint compromise petition is allowed and the case is allowed to be compounded between the parties.

7. A Reference may be made to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of New Win Export and another v. A. Subramaniam, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1741. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said judgment read 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 4interest 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 remedy shall have priority over the ‘punitive aspect’, courts should