Ishta Narayan Mishra vs State of Jharkhand

 Heard Mr. K. S. Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned

counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

This application is directed against the judgment dated 19.08.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 108 of 2007 whereby

and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 17.05.2007 passed in Case No. C/1 - 125 of 2001 by the learned Judicial

Magistrate 1st class, Jamshedpur convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and sentencing him to

undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a compensation of Rs. 69,882/- and 74,085/- has been affirmed.

A complaint case was instituted by the opposite party no. 2 herein in which it was stated that the firm of the complainant â€" opposite party no. 2

carries on the business of steel material. The petitioner is the Managing Director of M/s. Everest Electrical & Engineering Co. (P) Ltd. It is alleged

that against the credit purchases of the materials, the petitioner issued two account payee cheque bearing nos. 0953350 dated 09.12.2000 for Rs.

74,085/- and no. 0953360 dated 13.12.2000 for Rs. 69,082/- drawn on S.B.I., S.S.I., Adityapur, Jamshedpur. It has been alleged that when the cheque

was presented in the bank for encashment, the same got dishonoured and returned back with the memo ‘Exceeds arrangement’. A legal notice

was served upon the petitioner, but in spite of the same when the amount was not paid, C/1 Case No. 125 of 2001 was instituted. After conducting an

inquiry, cognizance was taken under Section 138 of N. I. Act. Since the complainant has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, the

petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of N. I. Act and was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 months as also to

pay a compensation of Rs. 74,085/- and 69,082/-. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal being

Criminal Appeal No. 108 of 2007 which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur on 19.08.2008.Â

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the matter has been compromised between both the parties and in fact there were

several disputes which were existing between the parties for business transaction and all have been settled and the amount of dishonoured cheque has

been returned back to the complainant.Â

Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has accepted the factum of compromise and has submitted that his grievance having

been redressed, he does not want to proceed further in the criminal case.

The submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 have been echoed in I.A. No.

6569 of 2018 which is a joint compromise petition. An averment has been made in the interlocutory application that the amount in dispute has already

been received by the opposite party no. 2 and they have finally settled all their disputes which related to the business transaction between the firm of

the petitioner and the opposite party no.2.

 On consideration of the fact that the matter has been compromised and good sense has prevailed between the parties, while setting aside the

judgments dated 19.08.2008 and 17.05.2007, this application stands allowed. Pending I.A. also stands disposed of.

Since the petitioner was granted bail on 21.10.2008 on the condition that he shall deposit the amount of fine imposed upon by the trial court and since

amount as stated has already been deposited before the learned trial court and the settlement of the issue by making payment of the amount of

dishonoured cheque was not dependent on the amount of fine deposited before the learned trial court, the petitioner is directed to file a petition before

the learned trial court for release of the said amount and on such application, the amount shall be released in favour of the petitioner.Â