Person accused of compoundable offence can be acquitted if a settlement is reached between the parties outside the court: High Court of Jharkhand

 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.1021 Petitioner The State of Jharkhand 2. Md. Tanweer Allam ….. Opp. Parties CORAM: HON BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR For the Petitioner For the State For the O.P. No.02 Mr. A. K. Chaturvedi Advocate Mr. Hadish Ansari Advocate Mr. V. K. Vasistha A.P.P Mr. Vikas Kumar Advocate The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the parties had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good th July 2021 The present revision application is directed against the judgment dated 17.08.2019 passed in Cr. Appeal No.1618 by the court of learned Sessions Judge East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur affirming the judgment and order of sentence dated 26.06.2018 whereby the petitioner has been found guilty and convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Jamshedpur in C 1 Case No.3055 of 2014 out of which Rs.2 95 000 was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant and rest amount of Rs.5 000 was to be appropriated to the State in default thereof to suffer S.I of six months. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since both the parties were ready to compromise and settle the dispute out side the court as such vide order dated 08.04.2021 the petitioner was exempted from surrendering in the court below It has been submitted that in terms of the settlement the entire amount of Rs.2 50 000 has already been paid to O.P. No.02. This fact 2 has been admitted by the learned counsel for O.P. No.02. It has further been submitted that the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is a compoundable offence. On the above facts prayer has been made to quash and set aside the judgments of the courts below Learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P. No.02 has submitted that there is compromise between the parties. It has further been submitted that O.P. No.02 has received the entire amount and he is agreed for compounding the offence Heard learned counsel for the parties. Since both the parties have settled their dispute outside the court and as per Section 147 of the N.I. Act the offence is compoundable in nature hence the offence is compounded In view of the above facts and considering the provisions of law the compromise is allowed and the judgment dated 17.08.2019 passed in Cr. Appeal No.1618 by the court of learned Sessions Judge East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur and the judgment and order of sentence dated dated 26.06.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Jamshedpur in C 1 Case No.3055 of 2014 are hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I Act in terms of the compromise entered into between the In the result the criminal revision stands allowed (Rajesh Kumar J

Summary: In a criminal trial where the offence in question is compoundable in nature, the accused person can be acquitted if both the parties are able to reach a settlement outside the court. This was held by a single member bench of the High Court of Jharkhand consisting of Justice Rajesh Kumar in the case of Rakesh Kumar v The State of Jharkhand [Cr. Revision No.107 of 2021] on 29th July 2021. The petitioner, Rakesh Kumar was found guilty of dishonouring cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the Sessions Judge at Jamshedpur on 26th June 2018 in C/1 Case No. 3055 of 2014. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,00,000 for his offences. Out of this amount, Rs. 3,00,000 was to be paid to the complainant and Rs. 5,000 to the state. If there was any default in these payments, the petitioner would be made to endure six months of simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by this impugned judgement, the petitioner filed the present revision petition before the High Court of Jharkhand. It was brought to the notice of the High Court that the matter was settled between the two parties outside the court and they had come to a compromise which was suitable to both parties. For this reason, the petitioner’s counsel submitted that the petitioner should be acquitted of the charges levied against him. The court noted that the offence which the petitioner was convicted of under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was compoundable in nature. For this reason the Court noted that the submission made by the petitioner’s counsel had merit and seeing that the dispute has already been settled by the parties themselves, it would be suitable to compound the offence.