2025:JHHC:37807 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.949 of 2025 Minhaj Quraishi, S/o- Kayum Quraishi, Age- 35 Years, R/o- Mauza- Quraishi Mohalla, Near Masjid, P.O. Dist- Lohardaga, P.S.- Lohardga, Jharkhand … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Laxmikant Prasad, S/o- Late Ramratan Prasad, R/o- Vill- Patratoli, Near Petrol Pump, P.O.+ District- Lohardaga, P.S- Lohardaga, Jharkhand … Opp. Parties -------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Ankit Apurva, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, APP For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate ------ 5/16.12.2025 Heard the parties. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the I.A. No.11332 of 2025 has been filed for condoning of delay of 1130 days. He further submits that in settling and arranging the money, such delay has occurred, in view of that the delay may kindly be condoned as the matter has been compromised between the parties. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State and opposite party No.2 have got no objection, if the delay is condoned. 4. As such, the delay of 1130 days in filing the revision application is hereby condoned. 5. I.A. No.11332 of 2025 is accordingly allowed and disposed of. 6. This criminal revision petition has been preferred for setting aside the judgment dated 16.09.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Lohardaga in Criminal Appeal No. 48/2019, which has been dismissed and the judgment and order of sentence dated 2025:JHHC:37807 2 30.09.2019, passed by learned C.J.M., Lohardaga, in connection with Complaint Case No. 424/2018 corresponding to Tr. No.-568/2019 has been affirmed, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate has been pleased to convict the petitioner u/s 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for Six Months and also directed the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.80,000/-(Rs. Eighty Thousand Only) to the complainant. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since good sense has prevailed between the parties and the matter has been compromised and I.A. No.9473 of 2025 has been filed for compromise. He then submits that the matter has been settled between the parties at Rs.50,000/- and the said amount has already been paid to the opposite party No.2. He then submits that in view of that I.A. No.9473 of 2025 may kindly be allowed. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that in light of the I.A., it appears that the matter has been compromised between the parties and the matter is arising out of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 accepts the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. He further submits both the parties have compromised the matter and for that aforesaid I.A. has been filed for compromise, which has been affidavited separately by the petitioner and the opposite party No.2. He also submits that in terms of compromise, O.P. No.2 has already received a sum of Rs.50,000/-. He next submits that in view of that, 2025:JHHC:37807 3 the matter may kindly be disposed of. 10. In view of the above and considering that the matter is arising out of 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, which is compoundable under Section 147 of Negotiable Instrument Act and both the parties have compromised the matter. In view of that the prayer made in the I.A. meant for compromise is allowed. 11. Reference may be made to New Win Export and another Vs. A. Subramaniam reported in 2024 SCC OnLine 1741, wherein it is held in Para 6 and 7, which read as under. “6. At this juncture, we would also like to reiterate a few words regarding the principles of compounding of offences in the context of NI Act. It is to be remembered that dishonour of cheques is a regulatory offence which was made an offence only in view of public interest so that the reliability of these instruments can be ensured. A large number of cases involving dishonour of cheques are pending before courts which is a serious concern for our judicial system. Keeping in mind that the 'compensatory aspect of remedy shall have priority over the 'punitive aspect', courts should encourage compounding of offences under the NI Act if parties are willing to do so. (See: Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663, Gimpex Private Limited v. Manoj Goel (2022) 11 SCC 7052, Meters And Instruments Private Limited v. Kanchan Mehta (2018) 1 SCC 5602) 7. In Raj Reddy Kallem v. The State of Haryana [2024] 5 SCR 203, this Court followed the same principles and quashed a conviction under the NI Act, by invoking its powers under Article 142, even though the complainant therein declined to give consent for compounding, observing that the accused has sufficiently compensated the complainant.” 12. In view of the above and considering the compromise between the parties, the joint compromise petition being I.A. No.9473 of 2025 2025:JHHC:37807 4 is allowed and disposed of and the case is allowed to be compounded between the parties. 13. In view of the above, the petitioner is acquitted by setting aside the judgment dated 16.09.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Lohardaga in Criminal Appeal No. 48/2019 and the judgment and order of sentence dated 30.09.2019, passed by learned C.J.M., Lohardaga, in connection with Complaint Case No. 424/2018 corresponding to Tr. No.-568/2019. 14. As such, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed and disposed of. Pending petition, if any also stands disposed of. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) 16.12.2025 R.Kumar