…. Chandrasekhar Patro v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Prasenjit Nayak
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 331 of 2016 …. Chandrasekhar Patro Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Prasenjit Nayak ----- …… Petitioner …… Opp. Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD -----
Legal Reasoning
For the Petitioner : Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Advocate Ms. Shatkshi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey, A. P. P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Ms. Sharda Kumar, Amicus Curiae In person. …… 17/10.01.2024 The case been placed today i.e. on 10.01.2024 in second half in light of the order passed today i.e. on 10.01.2024 in the first half. 2. Heard Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey, learned A. P. P. on behalf of the State and Mr. Prasenjit Nayak i.e. the O. P. No. 2, who has appeared in person and Ms. Sharda Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae, who has appointed earlier by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court to assist the Court, is also present. 3. The Criminal Revision No. 331 of 2016 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 19.01.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 206 of 2015 alongwith Criminal Appeal No. 207 of 2015 by Mr. Yogeshwar Mani, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XII, Ranchi by which learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XII, Ranchi has dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 207 of 2015 filed on behalf of the petitioner by affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.10.2015 passed by Sri Shashi Bhushan Sharma, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 1335 of 2011 2 in connection with T. R. No. 1038 of 2015 by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the N. I. Act and sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of six (6) months and to pay compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh) to the complainant-opposite party no. 2 under Section 357(3) of the CrPC and in default of payment of fine, further sentenced him to undergo S.I. for a period of three (3) months. However, the learned Appellate Court below has modified the sentenced in Criminal Appeal No. 206 of 2015 by affirming the conviction, but has modified the sentence by reducing it from six (6) months to three (3) months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 138 of the N. I. Act and enhanced the compensation amount from Rs. 5,00,000/- to Rs. 7,50,000/- in lieu of compensation under Section 357 (3) of the Cr. P. C., which was to be paid within ninety (90) days from the date of the judgment failing which, the petitioner was directed to undergo S. I. for a period of three (3) months and the complainant will have liberty to file separate case for recovery/fine under criminal procedure code. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case has been compromised between the parties i.e the petitioner and opposite party no. 2 and the petitioner has paid Rs. 4,50,000/- to the complainant-opposite party no. 2 by way of Demand Draft No. 627543 dated 03.05.2017 of Rs. 4,45,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- by cash towards full and final settlement of this case and as such, this Criminal Revision Application may be allowed in terms of compromise and the petitioner may be acquitted from the charges of Section 138 of the N. I. Act. 5. 6. Learned counsel for the State raised no objection. Learned Amicus Curiae for the opposite party no. 2, appointed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court to assist the 3 Court and Mr. Prasenjit Nayak, O. P. No. 2, who has appeared in person and have also admitted the factum of compromise between the petitioner and the complainant-opposite party no. 2 and OP No. 2 has submitted that he has received payment of Rs. 4,50,000/- and has no grievance and has also filed counter affidavit today i.e. on 10.01.2024 and copy of the same has also been served to the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and as such, necessary order may be passed. 7. Perused the records of this case and also rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioner on 25.04.2018 and the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the complainant-opposite party no. 2 on 10.01.2024 and considered the submissions of both the sides. 8. It appears that although there was some dispute between the parties as it appears from the order dated 04.12.2003 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and however, the opposite party no. 2 has himself appeared before this Court and has submitted that that the case has been compromised between both the sides i.e. the petitioner and the complainant-opposite party no. 2 and he has no grievance against the petitioner, hence, dispute between the parties has been settled. 9. Para- 6, 7, 8 and 9 of rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioner on 25.04.2018 read as follows:- “Para-6:- That before filing of the present counter affidavit the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 had already compromised the mater on certain terms and conditions as mutually agreed upon. As would be evident from the draft of the compromise petition that the parties settled their dispute whereby the opposite party no. 2 accepted Rs. 4,50,000/- in total without any coercion and threat. Para-7:-That in regard to above mentioned terms and condition of the joint compromise the opposite party had already accepted a sum of Rs. 4,45,000/- vide demand draft dated 3.5.2017. Para-8:- That to utter dismay of the petitioner even after deducing the terms of compromise the opposite party after receiving the said sum of 4 money had never again contacted the petitioner nor had made any efforts to sum up the revision petition pending against the present petitioner which shows his ulterior motive. Para-9:- That the opposite party had admitted at paragraph 8 of his counter affidavit that he has received a sum of Rs. 4,45,000 by way of demand draft which goes to show that the petitioner had fulfilled his part of condition as deduced in the joint compromise but the opposite party even after receiving the amount now had come to the Hon'ble Court stating that Rs. 3,55,000/- still remains unpaid which is illegal and shows vindictiveness and also amounts to suppression of facts before this Hon'ble Court.” 10. There are some other averments made therein, but the same is irrelevant to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11. Para- 1, 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the complainant-opposite party no. 2 on 10.01.2024 read as follows:- “Para-1:- That I am Opposite Number No. 2 in this case as such well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. Para-4-:- That, the instant case is settled between the parties through
Decision
joint compromise petition and hence may please be disposed off. Para-5:- That, this affidavit is being filed bonafide and in the interest of justice.” 12. Thus, it is evident that the case has been compromised between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 and there is no dispute between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2. 13. In view of the rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioner on 25.04.2018 and the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the complainant-opposite party no. 2 on 10.01.2024 and submission of the parties, the judgment dated 19.01.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 206 of 2015 alongwith Criminal Appeal No. 207 of 2015 by Mr. Yogeshwar Mani, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XII, Ranchi and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.10.2015 passed by Sri Shashi Bhushan Sharma, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case 5 No. 1335 of 2011 in connection with T. R. No. 1038 of 2015 are set aside in terms of compromise between the parties in the interest of justice. The petitioner namely Chandrasekhar Patro is acquitted for the charges for committing the offence punishable of under Section 138 of the N. I. Act and the petitioner namely Chandrasekhar Patro is not required to pay any compensation to the complainant-opposite party no. 2 and the petitioner namely Chandrasekhar Patro is also discharged from the liability of his bail bonds. 14. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision No. 331 of 2016 is allowed in terms of compromise and stands disposed of. Pending I.As. if any, stand disposed of. Kamlesh/ (Sanjay Prasad, J.)