2025:JHHC:11046 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 186 of 2024 Suchitra Prakash, aged about 52 years, wife of Tarun Prakash, resident of Bandhgari, Near DAV Brajnandan School, P.O. Bariatu, P.S. Sadar, District-Ranchi …… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2.Om Prakash Narsaria, son of late Basudeo Narsaria, resident of Opposite Lalpur Thana, Khirjri Road, 3(B), Narsaria Tower, 3rd Floor, P.O. and P.S. Lalpur, District-Ranchi ..…. Opp. Parties --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Chandrajit Mukherjee, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumr Mishra, APP For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Preetam Mandal, Advocate ----------- 07/Dated:08th April, 2025 Heard Mr. Chandrajit Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned APP for the State and Mr. Preetam Mandal, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2. 2. This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 14.10.2015 passed by Sri Shambhu Lal Shaw, learned Judicial Commissioner-VI, Ranchi in Cr. Appeal No.83 of 2013 by which the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed thereby affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.03.2013 passed by Sri Piyush Srivastava, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in C- 750 of 2008 (T.R. No.1309 of 2013) by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I Act and sentenced to undergo S.I for three months and to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant under section 357(3) Cr.P.C. 2025:JHHC:11046 2 3. One Supplementary affidavit instead of supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the O.P. No.2 on 05.04.2025 and in which it has been stated that O.P. No.2 has received a Bank Draft of Rs.1,75,000/- from the petitioner and he has also enclosed the photo copy of the Demand Draft as Annexure-A to this affidavit. 4. I.A. No.13326 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner and O.P. No.2 by way of Joint Compromise Petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case has been compromised between the petitioner and the O.P. No.2 and the petitioner will pay a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- by way of Demand Draft to the O.P. No.2 and hence the petitioner has made entire payment to the O.P. No.2 and as such the impugned judgment dated 14.10.2015 passed by the learned Appellate Court and the judgment dated 04.03.2013 passed by the learned Trial Court may be set aside and this Revision Application may be set aside. 6. Learned APP for the State has raised no objection. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 has also admitted the factum of compromise and submitted for filing the supplementary affidavit instead of supplementary counter affidavit on 05.04.2025 and O.P. No.2 has no grievance against the petitioner and hence necessary order may be passed. 8. Perused the records of this case and I.A. No.13326 of 2024. 9. Paragraph No.4, 6 and 7 of the I.A. No.13326 of 2024 read as follows:- “Para-4:- That during the pendency of the present case due to the intervention of well-wishers, the Petitioner and the O.P. No.2 have entered into a joint compromise and have resolved to settle all their disputes. 2025:JHHC:11046 3 Para-6:- That the O.P. 2 has also resolved that he shall not stake any other claim whatsoever under any account other than the amount of Rs.1,75,000/- which he will receive by the orders of this Hon’ble Court as and when the case is taken up. Para-7:- That the O.P.2 further states that he has no grievances or objection in the event that this Hon’ble Court is pleased to allow the present Criminal Revision Petition and be further pleased to set aside judgment dated 14.10.15 passed in Criminal Appeal No.83/2015 by Ld. Shambhu Lal Shaw, Judicial Commissioner-VI, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the Ld. Court was pleased to uphold the judgment dated 4.3.13 passed by Shri Piyush Srivastava, Ld. J.M. 1st Class in Complaint Case No.750/2008, T.R. No.1309/2013 whereby and whereunder the petitioner was found guilty and convicted u/s 138 N.I. Act with sentence of S.I for three months and to pay a compensation of Rs.1,50,000 to be paid to the O.P. No.2. 10. Paragraph-3, 4 and 5 of the supplementary affidavit dated 05.04.2025 read as follows:- “Para-3:- That I have compromised and amicably resolved all disputes with the Petitioner and in terms of the compromise I have received a bank draft of Rs.1,75,000 from the Petitioner which has also been en-cashed. Para-4:- That all my claims are redressed and I have no more claims from the Petitioner. Para-5:- That I have no objection in the event this Hon’ble Court wishes to allow the criminal revision petition filed by the Petitioner to set aside judgment dated 14.10.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No.83 of 2013 by learned Shri Shambhu Lal Shaw, Judicial Commissioner-VI, Ranchi whereby and whereunder he has been pleased to uphold the judgment dated 04.03.2013 passed by Sri Piyush Srivastava, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, in C-750/2008, T.R. No.1309/2013 and dismissed the appeal.” 11. It appears that the case has been compromised between the petitioner and the O.P. No.2 and the petitioner has paid 2025:JHHC:11046 4 entire amount of Rs.1,75,000/- by way of Demand Draft to the O.P. No.2. 12. It appears that the petitioner has already been exempted from surrenderring before the Court below vide order dated 19.03.2025. 13. It appears that O.P. NO.2 has no grievance against the petitioner. 14. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment dated 14.10.2015 passed by Sri Shambhu Lal Shaw then learned Judicial Commissioner-VI, Ranchi in Cr. Appeal No.83 of 2013 and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.03.2013 passed by Sri Piyush Srivastava, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in C-750 of 2008 (T.R. No.1309 of 2013) are set aside in terms of compromise and the petitioner namely Suchitra Prakash is acquitted for the offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act. 15. Accordingly, Cr. Revision No.186 of 2024 is allowed and stands disposed of in terms of compromise. 16. Consequently, I.A. No.13326 of 2024 also stands disposed of. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Saket/-