Md. Irfan, S/o Md. Israil vs State Of Jharkhand

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J

Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned counsel appearing for the State and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the complainant/opposite party no.2.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this criminal revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koderma in Criminal Appeal No.47 of 2024 by which the learned appellate court has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, dated 29. 11.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Koderma in Complaint Case No.146 of 2022, T.R. No.1502 of 2024, whereby, the petitioner has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and he has been sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year and to pay compensation of Rs.2,90,000/- with interest @ 10% as victim compensation to the complainant under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in default of payment of fine, further direction is there to undergo S.I. for 15 days. He further submits that the matter is arising out of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, which is compoundable under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. He then submits that now a good sense has prevailed between the parties and both have compromised the matter and in terms of the compromise, the cash amount of Rs.2,90,000/- with 10% interest has already been paid to the complainant by the petitioner, as disclosed in paragraph 5 of the joint compromise petition. He next submits that the joint compromise petition has been filed in the form of I.A. No.11953 of 2025. He also submits that the said I.A. has been filed on separate affidavit on behalf of both the sides. He submits that in view of that, this matter may kindly be disposed of in light of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the matter is arising under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and it appears that the compromise is there.

Learned counsel appearing for the complainant/opposite party no.2 accepts the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. He next submits that the compromise has taken place and pursuant to that the cash amount of Rs.2,90,000/- with 10% interest has already been received by the complainant and in view of that, the complainant does not want to proceed further in the matter. He also submits that the said joint compromise petition has been filed on separate affidavit by both the sides. He submits that in view of that, this matter may kindly be disposed of.

In view of the above facts, it transpires that the matter is arising under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, which is compoundable under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and both the parties have compromised the matter and joint compromise petition has been filed in the form of I.A. No.11953 of 2025.

When the parties have compromised the matter and the Court is satisfied regarding the genuineness of the settlement, the conviction of the accused would not serve any purpose and it is required to be set-aside. 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 encourage compounding of offences under the NI Act if parties are willing to do so. (See: Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 6631, Gimpex Private Limited v. Manoj Goel (2022) 11 SCC 7052, Meters And Instruments Private Limited And Anr. v. Kanchan Mehta (2018) 1 SCC 5603)

In Raj Reddy Kallem v. The State of Haryana & Anr. [2024] 5 S.C.R 203, this Court followed the same principles and quashed a conviction under the NI Act, by invoking its powers under Article 142, even though the complainant therein declined to give consent for compounding, observing that the accused has sufficiently compensated the complainant.”

In view of the above and considering the prayer made in the petition and further, the matter is arising under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and it is compoundable in light of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and both the parties have compromised the matter and in terms of the compromise, the cash amount of Rs.2,90,000/- with 10% interest has already been paid by the petitioner to the complainant/opposite party no.2 and in view of that, the joint compromise petition is allowed and the case is allowed to be compounded between the parties.

Accordingly, I.A. No.11953 of 2025 is disposed of.

Considering the totality of the circumstances and compromise between the parties and the petitioner has already paid entire awarded amount to the complainant and in that view of the matter, the petitioner is, hereby, acquitted by setting-aside the judgment dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koderma in Criminal Appeal No.47 of 2024 and the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, dated 29.11.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Koderma in Complaint Case No.146 of 2022, T.R. No.1502 of 2024.

In view of the above, the petitioner is, hereby, exempted from surrender before the learned Court and the surety is, hereby, discharged.

I.A. No.11931 of 2025, meant for exemption from surrender is, therefore, disposed of.

Accordingly, this criminal revision petition is allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, is disposed of..