Ravindra Singh v. The State of Jharkhand
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
This revision application is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 s. 138
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 357(A)
Judgment
Operative part
CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH ----- For the Petitioner : M/s. D. K. Chakraverty, Advocate For the State : M/s. A. K. Dey, A.P.P For the O.P. No. 2 : M/s. Ankit Kumar, Advocate --- 10/20.03.2023 Learned lawyer appearing for the petitioner submitted that the parties have settled their dispute. Learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 affirmed this fact. Both the parties, are present in the court alongwith their lawyers. The opposite party no. 2 informed the court that he had returned the ₹ 1 lakhs to the petitioner as per the terms and conditions of the compromise. Petitioner has affirmed this fact. This application has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 27.09.2008 passed by Sri Sanjay Kumar Choudhary learned J.M.F.C., Jamshedpur whereby and wherein learned magistrate held the opposite party no. 2 guilty of offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act and thereby sentencing him to pay a fine of ₹10,000/- and the fine amount was directed to be given to the complainant towards compensation under section 357(A) of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner was aggrieved by the judgment of the learned court below on the ground that the opposite party no. 2 has been let off very leniently. Both the parties, who are present with their lawyers have compromised this case which is compoundable in nature, so “no lis” remains to be adjudicated. This revision application is dismissed. Saurabh (Ambuj Nath, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: This revision application is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 138; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 357(A).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.