Shyam Sundar Rao vs State Of Jharkhand

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J

I.A. No.558 of 2026 has been filed for condonation of delay of 10 days in preferring this criminal revision petition.

Ms. Priyanka Boby, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the delay has occurred in preparation of file and, as such, the said delay may kindly be condoned.

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the State appearing through Video Conferencing and Mrs. Vani Kumari, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 have got no objection.

Considering that the delay is of only 10 days and looking to the reasons assigned in the said I.A., the delay of 10 days in preferring this criminal revision petition is, hereby, condoned.

Accordingly, I.A. No.558 of 2026 is allowed and disposed of.

Heard Ms. Priyanka Boby, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the State appearing through Video Conferencing and Mrs. Vani Kumar, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the matter is arising under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. She further submits that this petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 26.08.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.06/2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ghatsila, whereby, the learned appellate court has been pleased to dismiss the appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.11.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ghatshila in Complaint Case No.82/2019 (T.R. No.162/2021), 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.2,00,000/- under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner has been further sentenced to undergo S.I. for three months.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that now a good sense has prevailed between the parties and they have settled the matter and for that, compromise petition has been filed in the form of I.A. No.17531 of 2025. She then submits that since the matter is compoundable, a petition for exemption from surrender before the learned Court in the form of I.A. No.557 of 2026 has been filed.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also submits that in terms of the compromise, sum of Rs.1,50,000/- has already been paid to opposite party no.2/complainant. She next submits in view of that the compromise petition may kindly be allowed and the petitioner may kindly be exempted from surrender before the learned Court and this petition may kindly be disposed of.

Learned counsel for the State appearing through Video Conferencing submits that it appears that the compromise is there. He further submits that the matter is arising under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

Learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2/complainant accepts the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in terms of the compromise has already been received by the complainant. She further submits that the said compromise petition has been filed on separate affidavit on behalf of both the sides. She next submits that the complainant does not want to proceed further in the matter.

In view of the above and considering that 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 view of that, the prayer made in I.A. No.17531 of 2025 is allowed and case is allowed to be compounded between the parties.

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 SCCOnLine 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 facts and judgment, the petitioner herein is acquitted by setting-aside the judgment dated 26.08.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.06/2022 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ghatshila, and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.11.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ghatshila in Complaint Case No.82/2019 (T.R. No.162/2021).

The petitioner is, hereby, exempted from surrender before the learned Court.

Accordingly, this criminal revision petition is allowed in above terms and disposed of.

Pending I.A., if any, is disposed of.