The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.1381 of 2024 Surabala Sahoo …. Petitioner Mr. Uma Charan Mishra, Advocate -versus- Laxmi Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. …. Opp. Party CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No. 04. ORDER 11.12.2024 1. At the instance of the opposite party, I.C.C. Case No.3997 of 2012 was initiated against the present petitioner and her husband for the alleged dishonor of the cheque amounting to Rs.17 lakhs. The petitioner, who was the joint account holder along with her husband, had allegedly issued the cheque. During pendency of the trial, the husband of the present Page 1 of 8 petitioner has expired. Therefore, the petitioner faced the trial. Eventually, vide judgment dated 24.10.2019, the learned J.M.F.C., Bhubaneswar, had recorded the conviction against the petitioner and passed the following order: “O R D E R The convicted
Legal Reasoning
(accused No.2 namely, Smt. Surabala Sahoo) is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months (3 months) and this court further directs the convict to pay a sum of Rs.27,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs) as compensation u/s- 357 (3) Cr. P.C. which shall be realized from the convict like criminal fines and in default of such payment of compensation, he shall, further undergo Simple Imprisonment (S.I.) for 30 days.” 2. Against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.79 of 2019 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khordha at Bhubaneswar. While admitting the appeal, the petitioner has been directed to pay 20% of the compensation amount by the appellate court. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said order and hence, approached this Court by filing the present petition for setting aside the said order passed by the appellate Court. 3. When the matter stood thus, the parties have settled their dispute. As per the settlement terms, the petitioner had agreed to pay Rs.20 lakhs to the opposite party over and above Rs.6 lakhs, which has Page 2 of 8 already been paid. The opposite party has also agreed to the said settlement terms. 4. The petitioner is 72 years old lady. Therefore, she is not present in the Court today. However, her sons are present in the Court. She is also represented by the learned counsel. 5. The opposite party, namely, the Director of M/s. Laxmi Builders and Developers Private Limited Mr. Gobind Kumar Patel is also present in the Court today being represented by his counsel. Both of them have agreed to the terms of settlement. On the basis of settlement terms, the prayer made by the petitioner deserves merit and the entire dispute could be put to a quietus. 6. The joint affidavit dated 06.12.2024 has also been placed on record, inter alia, stating as under:- “4. That the petitioner in the meantime has paid Rs.6 lakhs to the opp. party which the opp. party also acknowledges (as per Annexure-3 series of the CRLMC). That further during the pendency of the Appeal both the parties have settled their disputes on following terms & conditions: (i) That the petitioner is ready & willing to pay Rs.20 lakhs (Twenty lakhs) to the opp. party as one time full & final payment Page 3 of 8 towards Cheque bearing No. 177149/Dtd. 22.08.2012 drawn on Axis Bank Ltd., Kalpana Square, Bhubaneswar. The opp. party with its free consent is accepting the amount as Full & final payment. The petitioner herewith files the copy of Draft of Rs.20 lakhs drawn in favour of the opp. party i.e. Draft bearing No. 500730/ Dtd. 04.12.2024 drawn on ICICI Bank, Sahid Nagar II, Bhubaneswar. (ii) That after receipt of the amount of Rs.20 lakhs the opp. party has no objection if the Criminal Appeal No.79/2019 which is pending in the Court of Ld Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar is allowed & the conviction of the petitioner is set aside/ quashed. Further the opp. party or any of its office bearer cannot make any claim against the petitioner in any manner. (iii) That the opp. party simultaneously at the time of receipt of the amount of Rs.20 lakhs shall return the following Documents in original to the petitioner in the Court itself. Those documents are (a) RSD No-8998/Dtd 25.08.1982. (b) RSD No-8999/Dtd 25.08.1982. Page 4 of 8 (c) RSD No-3749/Dtd 19.08.1981 with original ROR and its linked Document i.e. RSD No-3984/Dtd 06.06.1966. (d) RSD No-8384/Dtd 21.12.1991 and its linked Document i.e. RSD No-7442/Dtd 31.10.1963 and RSD No-3984/Dtd 06.06.1966. (e) Certified copy of ROR (Patta) and Rent Orders copy for the Plot No-229, Khata No-229 in Mouza- Nuagaon, Bhubaneswar, Dist- Khurda. (f) Original Affidavit for the Plot No-221 (Sabik) Sabik Khata No-37 corresponding to Hal Khata No-13, Hal Plot No-228 in Mouza- Nuagaon, Bhubaneswar, Dist- Khurda. (g) Any other documents of late Gangadhar Sahoo & Surabala Sahoo if found with the opp. party then the opp. party hereby undertakes to return it to the petitioner or the son of the petitioner namely Rajarshi Gyanadarshi and it would not be used in any manner by the opp. party. (iv) That after disposal of the case both the Page 5 of 8 parties shall maintain cordial relationship with each other & shall not hamper reputation of either party or family members of either party in any manner in any platform. (v) That further the opp. party or office bearers of the opp. party shall not initiate any case in any forum against the petitioner or the family members of the petitioner so also the petitioner shall refrain herself from initiating any proceeding against the opp. party or the office bearers of the opp. party.” 7. On the basis of the aforementioned settlement terms, the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court for quashing of the entire criminal prosecution against her. 8. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H. in Criminal Appeal No.963 of 2010. Relying upon the said judgment, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel has stated that even if the appeal is pending,
Decision
the present petition could be disposed of on the basis of the settlement. In Damodar S. Prabhu (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has indeed laid down the law Page 6 of 8 that at any stage, the case arising out of a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act could be put to rest on settlement terms. However, if the settlement takes place at the stage of trial, 10% of the cheque amount is liable to be paid additionally. If the settlement takes place at the appellate stage, 15% and subsequently 20% of the cheque amount is also liable to be paid additionally. But there is a rider to the said condition, if the parties have agreed for settlement amount, it is not necessary to impose such condition, for the purpose of quashing the proceeding. 9. In the instant case, both the parties have agreed to the settlement terms. The cheque amount is Rs.17 lakhs, whereas the petitioner-accused has agreed to pay Rs.26 lakhs in toto. Therefore, even the condition laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu’s case (supra) is satisfied in the instant case. 10. In that view of the matter, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 24.10.2019 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Bhubaneswar in I.C.C. Case No.3997 of 2012 is set aside on the basis of the settlement terms. As a sequitur, the Criminal Appeal No.79 of 2019 pending in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khordha at Bhubaneswar also disposed of in the same terms. Page 7 of 8 11. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of. Judge Subhasis (S.S. Mishra) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 12-Dec-2024 20:34:59 Page 8 of 8