1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1367 of 2022 Keshav Ghosh @ Keshab Ghosh, Aged about 42 years, S/o Late Budhdeo Ghosh @ Budhu Dav Ghosh, R/o Village-Entapara, P.O. Makadampur, P.S-Maheshpur, District-Pakur, Jharkhand …… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2.Ram Chandra Prasad S/o Ratan Saha, R/o Village-Hathkathi, P.O & P.S-Hiranpur, District-Pakur, Jharkhand ……. Opp. Parties --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Choubey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabir Kr. Chatterjee, Spl.PP For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. D.C. Mishra, Advocate ----------- 13/Dated:03rd April, 2025 This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 11.11.2022 passed by Sri Bal Krishan Tiwari, learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Pakur in Cr. Appeal No.16 of 2018 by which the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed thereby affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.03.2018 passed by Sri Akhilesh Kumar, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur in P.C.R. No.221 of 2015, corresponding to T.R. No.141 of 2018 by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I Act and sentenced to under S.I for one year and to pay compensation of Rs.70,000/- under section 357(3) Cr.P.C. 2. I.A. No.9237 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner and the O.P. No.2 by way of Joint Compromise Petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned judgments and order of sentence passed by the learned Courts below are not sustainable in law. However, it is further submitted that the case has been compromised between the 2 petitioner and the O.P. No.2 and the petitioner has paid the compensation of Rs.70,000/- by way of Banker’s cheque of Rs.50,000/ and Rs.20,000/- respectively on 31.07.2024 and 27.08.2024 respectively which have been enclosed as Annexure- 1A/1 at page 13 and 14 of the of the Interlocutory Application and hence the impugned judgment and order of sentence may be set aside and the petitioner may be acquitted. 4. Learned Spl.PP for the State has raised no objection. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 has also admitted the factum of compromise and submitted that the O.P. No.2 has received the compensation amount of Rs.70,000/- from the petitioner and the O.P. No.2 has no grievance against the petitoner and hence necessary order may be passed. 6. Perused the records of this case and I.A. No.9237 of 2024 7. Paragraph No.1 to 4 of the I.A. No.9237 of 2024 read as follows:- “Para-1:- That it is stated and submitted that both the parties have arrived to the settlement of dispute between them after intervention of common friends of both the parties, at DLSA, Pakur have decided to settle the dispute amongst them. Both the parties therefore have jointly taken decision to settle the dispute between them outside the court. Now parties have agreed to settle the dispute between the petitioner and complainant and the petitioner to pay Rs.70,000/- (Seventy thousand only) as full and final settlement to the O.P. No.2. Out of above total amount agreed between the parties, the O.P. No.2 has receive the Original Demand Draft of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousands) at the time of compromise on 31.07.2024. The O.P. No.2 has receive the Original Demand Draft of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty Thousands) at the time of filing of joint compromise on 27.08.2024, has been handed over by the petitioner in the form of Demand Draft, cheque at the time of filing of joint compromise to the O.P. No.2 by signing compromise application acknowledge the same before the Hon’ble High Court and the complaint has no objection in acquittal of appellant on the basis of joint compromise. 3 Photo Copy of Demand Drafts of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) & Rs.20,000/- in the name of O.P. No.2 are being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-1 to the I.A. Para-2:- That the party No.2, shall co-operate in the final disposal of the instant case as the final settlement has been arrived between them and the complainant has no further claim against the petitioner, therefore the instant criminal revision shall be disposed of in terms of settlement between the parties. Para-3:- That it is stated and submitted that the parties have settled the dispute by their sweet will, without any pressure or influence from any concern. Para-4:- That it is submitted by the parties that after settlement between the parties in the instant case, no further claim will be entertained in future by either of the parties on full and final payment by above Demand Draft.” 8. It appears from the record that the petitioner has already been granted bail vide order dated 17.02.2024 by the Co- ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary) of this Court. 9. It appears that the case has been compromised between the petitioner and the O.P. No.2 and the petitioner has paid entire compensation of Rs.70,000/- to the O.P. No.2 and there is no grievance between the parties now. 10. Under the circumstances, the judgment dated 11.11.2022 passed by learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Pakur in Cr. Appeal No.16 of 2018 and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.03.2018 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur in P.C.R. No.221 of 2015, corresponding to T.R. No.141 of 2018 are set aside and the petitioner namely Keshav Ghosh @ Keshab Ghosh is acquitted for the offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act and the petitioner- Keshav Ghosh @ Keshab Ghosh is also discharged from the liability of bail bonds. 4 11. Accordingly, Cr. Revision No.1367 of 2022 is allowed and stands disposed of in terms of compromise. 12. Consequently, I.A No.9237 of 2024 also stands disposed of. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Saket/-