Gopal Machua vs State of Jharkhand and Another

Harish Chandra Mishra, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State as also learned counsel for the complainant. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Judgment dated 14.9.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, in Cr. Appeal No. 142 of 2010, whereby the appeal filed against the Judgment and Order dated 23.4.2010 passed by Sri Uttam Anand, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur, in complaint case No. C/1-962 of 2008/T.R. No. 605 of 2010, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, has been dismissed by the learned Appellate Court below.

I.A. No. 226 of 2013 has been filed by the parties jointly stating that the case has been compromised between the parties outside the Court and the entire amount has been paid to the complainant-opposite party No. 2. It has also been prayed in the said application that in view of the compromise, the petitioner be exempted from filing the surrender certificate. An affidavit has been filed in the said interlocutory application sworn by the complainant-opposite party No. 2 accepting the contents therein.

Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has submitted that the case has since been compromised between the parties and as such, the complainant has no grievance against the petitioner and he has no objection in compounding the offence.

In view of the compromise between the parties and in view of the fact that the offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is compoundable in nature, the compromise between the parties, is hereby, accepted and the offence is allowed to be compounded. Accordingly, the impugned Judgment and Order dated 23.4.2010 passed by Sri Uttam Anand, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur, in complaint case No. C/1-962 of 2008/T.R. No. 605 of 2010, as also the Judgment dated 14.9.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, in Cr. Appeal No. 142 of 2010 are, hereby, set aside on the basis of the compounding of the offence. Consequently, the petitioner is acquitted of the acquisition. The petitioner is on bail and he is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bond. This revision application, as well as the interlocutory application, are accordingly, allowed.