Sanjay Singh v. The State of Jharkhand

----- : Mrs. Aanya, Advocate : Mr. Praful Jojo, A. P. P. I. A. No. 9343 of 2019 …… 07/10.10.2022 Heard Mrs. Aanya, learned counsel, under the instruction of Mr. Sumeet Gadodia learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Praful Jojo, learned A. P. P. for the State and Mr. Srijin, learned counsel, under the instruction of Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.

2. I. A. No. 9343 of 2019 has been filed on behalf of both the sides by way of a joint compromise application.

3. The Criminal Revision No. 1785 of 2018 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 24.09.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2018 by which the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal by affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.02.2018 passed by Sri Shivendu Dwivedi, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in C/1 Case No. 3503 of 2010 by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of six (6) months and to pay Rs. 11,00,000/- to the complainant by way of compensation under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C.

4. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the case has been compromised between the parties and the both the sides have settled their dispute by Memorandum of Understanding -2- dated 24.09.2019 in lieu of a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- payable to the opposite party no. 2-Complainant. It is submitted that the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- through RTGS to the opposite party no. 2- complainant and rest Rs. 3,00,000/- have been paid in six equal installments starting from November, 2019. It is submitted that there is no dispute between the parties now and as such, the judgments and order passed by the learned Court below may be set aside and this Criminal Revision Application may be allowed.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State raised no objection.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has admitted the factum of compromise between the petitioner and the opposite party no.2-complainant. It has been submitted that the complainant/ opposite party no.2 has received total a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- as per Memorandum of Understanding dated 24.09.2019 i.e. Rs. 5,00,000/- through RTGS and rest Rs. 3,00,000/- have been received in six equal installments starting from November, 2019 and has submitted that opposite party no.2 –complainant has no grievance.

7. Perused the I. A. No. 9343 of 2019 and considered the submission of both the sides.

8. It transpires from the record that the opposite party no. 2 had filed a case being C/1 Case No. 3503 of 2010 for dishonor of the cheque of Rs. 8.50,000/-.

9. From the averment made in I. A. No. 9343 of 2019, it transpires that the matter has been settled between both the sides by way of Memorandum of Understanding dated 24.09.2019 in lieu of a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- payable to the opposite party no. 2-Complainant, which has been admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 during the course of argument.

10. Para- 3,4, 6 and 7 of the I. A. No. 9343 of 2019 are as follows:- -3- “Para 3:- That the petitioner and the opposite party No.-2 state and submit that they have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding duly signed by both the petitioner and opposite Party No. 2 on

24.09.2019. In terms of the memorandum of understanding, the parties have mutually settled their dispute out of Court for in lieu of a sum of Rs.8 Lakhs payable to the opposite parties party no.2. In pursuance of the said memorandum of understanding dated 24.09.2019 the petitioner has already transferred a sum of Rs. 5 Lakhs in the Bank Account of the opposite Party No. 2 through RTGS. The parties have further agreed that the petitioner will pay the balance amount of Rs. 3 Lakhs in 6 equal installments of Rs. 50,000/- each starting from November, 2019. The petitioner has issued six post dated cheques of Rs. 50,000/- each drawn on Dena Bank, Bistupur as detailed in paragraph 5 of the dum of understanding. Para 4:- That both the parties have entered into compromise on their own free will without any coercion or undue influence / pressure from either side. Para 6:- That the petitioner and the opposite party No. 2 states that the compromise entered into between both of them may be accepted by this Hon'ble Court and the present Rev. Petition may be allowed and impugned Judgement dated

24.09.2018 passed by the Learned Principal District and Sessions Judge,Jamshedpur in Cr. Appeal No. 56/2018 may be set aside. Para 7:-. That in view of the compromise entered into with the petitioner, the opposite party No.2 is not -4- willing to contest the present Revision Case and humbly prays that the present Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner may be allowed and the impugned judgment may be set aside.”

11. Thus it is evident from the case has been compromised between the petitioner and the opposite No. 2.

12. Under the circumstances, the judgment dated 24.09.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2018 and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.02.2018 passed by Sri Shivendu Dwivedi, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in C/1 Case No. 3503 of 2010 are set aside in the interest of justice and the petitioner- Sanjay Singh is acquitted for the offence under Section 138 of the N. I. Act and is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds.

13. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision No. 1785 of 2018 is allowed in terms of compromise and stands disposed of.

14. I. A. No. 9343 of 2019 is also allowed and stands disposed of. I.A. No. 9341 of 2019 and I.A. No. 9344 of 2019 also stand disposed of. Kamlesh/ (Sanjay Prasad, J.)