2023:JHHC:44464 Page-1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 1651 of 2017 Umesh Singh, Son of Ram Adhar Singh, resident of Qr. No. 13, Jarul Road, New Cable Town, Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S. Golmuri, District- East, Singhbum ….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Rajesh Kumar Ojha, Son of Sri Kanhaiya Jee Ojha, resident of 57, Bir Kunwar Bastee, Near- Pani Tanki, P.O. & P.S.- Mango, Town- Jamshedpur, East Singbhum ….. Respondents -------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD -------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepankar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Dubey, Advocate --------- Order No. 23 /Dated: 29th July, 2025 The present Criminal Revision No. 1651 of 2017 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 13.09.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 151 of 2016 by Manoj Prasad, then learned Sessions Judge, East Singbhum, Jamshedpur whereby the learned Sessions Judge, East Singbhum, Jamshedpur has dismissed the Criminal Appeal No. 151 of 2016 and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.11.2016 passed by Sri Arbind Kachhap, then Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in C/1 Case No. 277 of 2013 corresponding to T.R. No. 879 of 2016 by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of six months and to pay the fine as compensation amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the complainant-opposite party no.2. 2023:JHHC:44464 Page-2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case has been compromised between the parties and petitioner has paid earlier Rs. 45,000/- (Forty Five Thousand) to the opposite party no. 2, which has been received by opposite party no. 2. It is further submitted that petitioner has also paid Rs.1,05,000/- (One Lakh Five Thousand) vide Demand Draft No. 000235. to the complainant-opposite party no. 2 and said demand draft of Rs. 1,05,000/- (One Lakh Five Thousand), has been received by the opposite party no. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also produced the photo copy of the demand draft of Rs.1,05,000/-, let it be kept on record. Hence, the judgment passed by the Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 151 of 2016 and judgment and sentence passed in C/1Case No. 277 of 2013 by the learned Trial Court may be set aside and this Criminal Revision No. 1651 of 2017 may be allowed. 3. Learned APP raised no objection. 4. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 is also present and has admitted factum of compromise between the petitioner and opposite party no.2. It is further submitted that opposite party no. 2 has already received a demand draft of Rs. 45,000/- and today, opposite party no.2 has also received of Rs. 1,05,000/- by way of Demand Draft dated 18.07.2025 vide Demand Draft No. 000235. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has testified the presence of opposite party no. 2, who is also present in person. It is further submitted that opposite party no. 2, is also present in the Court and the opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the impugned judgments are set aside in the light of compromise. 2023:JHHC:44464 Page-3 5. Having heard the learned counsel for both the sides and from perusal of the records, It appears that the case has been compromised between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2. 6. It appears that the opposite party no. 2 has also produced his Adhar Card, which is kept on record. 7. It is well settled that offence is under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is compoundable in nature. 8. It appears that petitioner has earlier paid Rs. 45,000/- (Forty Five Thousand) by way of demand draft in the name of the complainant-opposite party no. 2 on 02.08.2024 in the light of the order dated 26.07.2024 passed by this Court and which was received by the complainant-opposite party no.2 before the Office of the learned Registrar General on 02.08.2024. 9. It further appears that the petitioner has further paid the remaining amount by demand draft of Rs. 1,05,000/- (One Lakh Five Thousand) to the complainant-opposite party no.2. 10. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner has paid entire compensation amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (One Lakh Fifty Thousand) to the opposite party no. 2 as has been directed by the learned Trial Court below and which has been affirmed by the learned Appellate Court. 11. It further reveals that the petitioner has also remained in custody for certain period. 12. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner has paid the entire amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (One Lakh Fifty Thousand) to the complainant-opposite party no. 2 and the petitioner has also got the case compromised with the opposite party no. 2 and it has also been admitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 2023:JHHC:44464 Page-4 as well as the complainant-opposite party no. 2, who is also present in person in the Court. 13. On the facts and in the circumstances mentioned above and also in view of the compromise between both the sides, the judgment dated 13.09.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 151 of 2016 by Sri Manoj Prasad, then learned Sessions Judge, East Singbhum, Jamshedpur and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.11.2016 passed by Sri Arbind Kachhap, then Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur are set aside and this petitioner, namely, Umesh Singh is acquitted from the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and petitioner is also discharged from the liability of his bail bonds. 14. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision No. 1651 of 2017 is allowed, in terms of compromise. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Simran/