[2025:JHHC:37931] -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 264 of 2025 Birendra Kumar Pandey (aged about 46 years), son of Satya Narayan Pandey, resident of Village- Sihodih, Patel Nagar, P.O.-Sihodih, P.S.-Giridih(M), District-Giridih. ..... … Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand. 2. Bajrangi Kumar Rai, son of Banaras Rai, resident of Village-Bansdih, P.O. and P.S.-Deori, District-Giridih. ..... … Opposite Parties -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Ram Lakhan Yadav, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mrs. Savita Kumari, Advocate. ------ 08/ 17.12.2025 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the matter is arising out of Section 138 of NI Act and the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih, by the judgment dated 05.03.2024 passed in Complaint Case No. 823 of 2020 has been pleased to hold guilty and the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months and directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 5,05,000/- to the complainant under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. He further submits that the said judgment of learned trial court has been challenged before the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih, in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2024, whereby the learned first appellate court has been pleased to dismiss the said appeal by order dated 09.07.2024 by way of upholding the order of the learned trial court. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the matter is arising out of Section 138 of NI Act and the complaint case has been filed for dishonour of cheque. He submits that now the good sense has prevailed between the parties and the case has been compromised between the parties and Rs. 5,05,000/- has already been [2025:JHHC:37931] -2- paid to the complainant-O.P. No. 2. He next submits that the compromise petition has been brought on record by way of filing I.A. No. 13732 of 2024. He then submits that since the matter is arising out of NI Act, which is compoundable in nature in light of Section 147 of the said Act, in view of that, the petitioner may kindly be put at liberty. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant-O.P. No. 2, on instruction submits that the compromise has reached between the parties and Rs. 5,05,000/- has already been received by the complainant-O.P. No. 2 and further the complainant does not want to proceed with the matter any further. He next submits that the I.A. filed in the form of compromise and separate affidavit has been filed by both the side and further in light of Section 147 of NI Act, the matter may be disposed of. 4. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State submits that the compromise has taken place and the case is arising under Section 138 of NI Act and further the case is compoundable under Section 147 of the NI Act. 5. In view of the above discussions and further considering the rival submissions of the respective parties and in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, which has been brought on record by way of filing I.A. No. 13732 of 2024 and the case is compoundable in nature in light of Section 147 of the NI Act, this court allows the case to be compounded. Reference may be made to the case of New Win Export & Anr. Versus A. Subramaniam, reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 1741, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paras-6 and 7 has held as follows:- “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 [2025:JHHC:37931] -3- 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 6631 , Gimpex Private Limited v. Manoj Goel (2022) 11 SCC 7052 , Meters And Instruments Private Limited v. Kanchan Mehta (2018) 1 SCC 5603) 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.” 6. Consequently, the judgment dated 05.03.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih, in Complaint Case No. 823 of 2020 and the order dated 09.07.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih, in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2024, are hereby, set aside. The petitioner is exonerated from all the liabilities. 7. The aforesaid I.A., filed for joint compromise is allowed and disposed of. 8. As such, this revision petition is allowed and disposed of. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated:-17.12.2025 Amitesh/-