2026:JHHC:2650 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.374 of 2025 Santosh Kumar, aged about 56 Years, Son of Sri Rajendra Sharma, Resident of House No.-132 of 2024, Road No.-12, Housing Colony, Adityapur, P.O.-Adityapur, P.S.-Adityapur, District-Seraikela. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Yash Kamal Developers Pvt. Ltd. having its office at Yash Kamal Complex, Bistupur, P.O and P.S.-Bistupur, Jamshedpur, represented by its Director Shri Prabir P Patel, P.O. & P.S. Bistupur, District-East Singhbhum. … Opp. Parties -------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kr. Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shashi Kr. Verma, APP For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate ------ 6/02.02.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the state and O.P. No.2. 2. This revision petition has been preferred for setting aside the Judgment dated 30.11.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.234 of 2023 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, whereby he has he has been pleased to dismiss the appeal and affirmed the Judgment of learned Trial Court dated 27.9.2023 passed in C/1 Case No. 3408 of 2018, whereby the learned Court has been pleased to convict the petitioner under section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment of 12 months along with a fine of Rs.1,15,000/- out of which, whole amount has to be paid to the complainant as compensation under section 357(3) of CrPC and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner has been further directed to undergo S.I. for 01 month. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 2026:JHHC:2650 2 matter is arising out of section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and the complaint case was filed for dishonour of cheque of Rs.31,750/- and another cheque amount of Rs.68,000/- He submits that now a good sense has been prevailed between the parties and the matter has been compromised and it has been settled on the payment of Rs.75,000/- with regard to both the cheques. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that he has come forward with the revalidated bank draft of Rs. 75,000/- in the name of the complainant-company. In course of the proceeding, he has handed over the said bank draft to the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 will hand over the said bank draft to the complainant-opposite party No.2. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the matter is compoundable in light of section 147 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the State submits that it appears that the matter is arising out of section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2- complainant accepts the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. He submits that the compromise has already been made and Rs.75,000/- for both the cheque amount has been handed over to him in course of the proceeding that will be handed over by him to the opposite party No. 2-complainant. He 2026:JHHC:2650 3 submits that he has got instructions that the opposite party No. 2 does not want to proceed further in the matter. 8. In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and considering that the matter is arising out of section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, which is compoundable under section 147 of the said Act and the compromise has already been made. 9. As such this case is allowed to be compounded between the parties. 10. Reference may be made to the case of New Win Export and another Vs. A. Subramaniam reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 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.” 2026:JHHC:2650 4 11. In the light of the above facts and the judgment, the petitioner is hereby acquitted by setting aside the Judgment dated 30.11.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 234 of 2023 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur and the Judgment of the learned Trial Court dated 27.9.2023 passed in C/1 Case No. 3408 of 2018. 12. This criminal revision petition is allowed in the above terms and disposed of. Pending petitions, if any, are also disposed of. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) 02.02.2026 R.Kumar