Cr.Rev./1194/2025 of AMIT KUMAR GUPTA Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 23 December 2025

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Sunny Robert Anthony, son of late Rock Anthony, resident of village Ward No. 11, Chandmari, P.O. and P.S. Chakradharpur, District-West Singhbhum, Jharkhand .…. … Opposite Parties

--------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner

:Mr. Ronit Anthony Kachhap, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Spl.P.P For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Aman John Tirkey, Advocate 05/ 23.12.2025: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.

2. I.A. No.16023 of 2025 has been filed for condonation of delay of 06 days in filing the present criminal revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in preparation of filing of criminal revision, delay of 06 days has occurred and in view of that the delay may kindly be condoned.

4. Learned counsels for the State and O.P. No. 2 have got no serious objection if the delay is condoned.

5. Considering the period of delay that is only of six days and for the reasons assigned in the I.A, prayer made in I.A. is allowed. I.A. No. 16023 of 2025 stands allowed and disposed of and accordingly, delay of 06 days in filing the present criminal revision is condoned

6. This revision petition has been preferred for setting aside judgment dated 21.08.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhhbhum, Chaibasa in Criminal Appeal No. 15/2025 whereby learned Sessions Judge has been pleased to dismiss the criminal appeal and also for setting aside judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.02.2025 passed by the learned

SDJM, Chakradharpur (Chaibasa) in Complaint Case No. 84/2021 (T.R. No. 322/2025) whereby the petitioner has been convicted under section 138 of N.I. Act and further sentenced to undergo nine months S.I. along with fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act and further directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the O.P. No.2 and in default of payment of fine further to undergo S.I. for six months.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the matter is arising out of section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act which is compoundable under section 147 of N.I. Act and now good sense has prevailed between the parties and the matter has been compromised and pursuant to that joint compromise petition has been filed contained in annexure 1 to this criminal revision. He further submits that both the parties have settled the matter @ Rs. 3,00,000/-. He further submits that since the matter is arising out of Negotiable Instrument Act and now compromise has taken place in view of that judgment of conviction and order of sentence may kindly be set aside.

8. Learned counsel for the State submits that compromise is there in the light of averment made in the said joint compromise petition

9. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 accepts the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that joint compromise petition has been filed and the O.P. No.2 has received Rs. 3,00,000/-. He further submits that complainant does not want to proceed with the case.

10. Since the matter is arising out of section 138 of N.I. Act and both parties have settled the matter and in view of that compromise is hereby accepted.

11. In the case of “New Win Export and Another Vs. A. Subramaniam” reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 1741 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 6 and 7 has held 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 interest 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 v. Kanchan Mehta (2018) 1 SCC

7. In Raj Reddy Kallem v. The State of Haryana [2024] 5 SCR 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.”

12. In view of above and considering that the matter is arising out of Negotiable Instrument Act and now compromise has reached between the parties which is compoundable under section 147 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “New Win Export and Another Vs. A. Subramaniam (surpa), the judgment 21.08.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhhbhum, Chaibasa in Criminal Appeal No. 15/2025 and judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.02.2025 passed by the learned SDJM, Chakradharpur (Chaibasa) in Complaint Case No. 84/2021 (T.R. No. 322/2025), are set aside.

13. The petitioner is put at liberty forthwith.

14. This criminal revision is allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A. if any, stands disposed of. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated. 23.12.2025 Satyarthi-