Jharkhand High Court
Dipankar Majumdar S/O Late Dilip Kumar ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 June, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 327 of 2024
Dipankar Majumdar S/o late Dilip Kumar Majumdar, aged about
43 years, residents of Thakurbari Street, Bhanupriya Apartment,
Flat No. 302, 3rd Floor, P.O. and P.S.Shree Ramur, District-
Hugli, West Bengal ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Pradeep Kumar Moonka S/o Sri Mahabir Moonka, Proprietor
of JMD Enterprises, resident of 5, Mills Area, Sakchi, P.O. and
P.S. Sakchi, District-East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur
... ... Opp. Parties
With
Cr. Revision No. 331 of 2024
Dipankar Majumdar S/o late Dilip Kumar Majumdar, aged about
43 years, residents of Thakurbari Street, Bhanupriya Apartment,
Flat No. 302, 3rd Floor, P.O. and P.S. Shree Ramur, District-
Hugli, West Bengal ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Pradeep Kumar Moonka S/o Sri Mahabir Moonka, Proprietor
of JMD Enterprises, resident of 5, Mills Area, Sakchi, P.O. and
P.S. Sakchi, District-East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur
... ... Opp. Parties
With
Cr. Revision No. 333 of 2024
Dipankar Majumdar S/o late Dilip Kumar Majumdar, aged about
43 years, residents of Thakurbari Street, Bhanupriya Apartment,
Flat No. 302, 3rd Floor, P.O. and P.S. Shree Ramur, District-
Hugli, West Bengal ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Pradeep Kumar Moonka S/o Sri Mahabir Moonka, Proprietor
of JMD Enterprises, resident of 5, Mills Area, Sakchi, P.O. and
P.S. Sakchi, District-East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur
... ... Opp. Parties
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitesh Kumar, Advocate
(In all cases)
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Rajbansh Singh, Advocate
(In all cases)
For the State : Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, APP
---
05/27.06.2024 Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. These three petitions have been tagged as the complainant and the convict are the same person in all the three cases which arise out of convictions under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881with respect to three cheques. Pradeep Kumar Moonka is the complainant and Dipankar Majumdar is the convict.
3. Cr. Revision No. 327 of 2024 has been filed for the following reliefs:-
"For setting aside the judgment dated 6th February 2024 passed by Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No. 168 of 2023 whereby the learned lower appellate court has erroneously affirmed the judgment dated 28.07.2023 passed by J.M. 1st Class, Jamshedpur in C/1 Case No. 2499 of 2015 by which the petitioner held guilty under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year and also to pay fine of Rs. 48,000/- out of which Rs. 40,000/- was directed to pay to the complainant as compensation and in default of payment of fine petitioner has to undergo additional imprisonment of three months."
4. Cr. Revision No. 331 of 2024 has been filed for the following reliefs:-
"For setting aside the judgment dated 6th February 2024 passed by Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No. 167 of 2023 whereby the learned lower appellate court has erroneously affirmed the judgment dated 28.07.2023 passed by J.M. 1st Class, Jamshedpur in C/1 Case No. 2495 of 2015 by which the petitioner held guilty under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year and also to pay fine of Rs. 78,000/- out of which Rs. 70,000/- was directed to pay to the complainant as compensation and in default of payment of fine petitioner has to undergo additional imprisonment of three months."
5. Cr. Revision No. 333 of 2024 has been filed for the following reliefs:-
"For setting aside the judgment dated 6th February 2024 passed by Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No. 120 2 of 2023 whereby the learned lower appellate court has erroneously affirmed the judgment dated 30.05.2023 passed by J.M. 1st Class, Jamshedpur in C/1 Case No. 162 of 2016 by which the petitioner held guilty under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced to undergo S.I. for four months and also to pay fine of Rs. 30,000/- out of which Rs. 27,000/- was directed to pay to the complainant as compensation and in default of payment of fine petitioner has to undergo default sentence of one month."
6. Learned counsel for the parties have jointly submitted that the common petitioner in all the three cases has been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in connection with three different cheques amounting to Rs. 37,000/- in Cr. Revision No. 327 of 2024; Rs. 60,000/- in Cr. Revision No. 331 of 2024 and Rs. 21,423/- in Cr. Revision No. 333 of 2024. The total cheque amount is Rs. 1,18,423/-. The learned trial court has imposed fine as well as awarded compensation amount apart from sentences of imprisonment.
7. The compensation amount has been awarded to the extent of Rs. 40,000/- in Cr. Revision No. 327 of 2024, Rs. 70,000/- in Cr. Revision No. 331 of 2024 and Rs. 27,000/- in Cr. Revision N0. 333 of 2024. The total amount of compensation which was payable to the opposite party was Rs. 1,37,000/- only and the parties have settled their dispute out of court at an amount of Rs. 1,55,000/- which has been paid by the petitioner to the opposite party No. 2.
8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 does not dispute the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
9. At this, learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that they have filed their joint compromise petitions in each case and the offence being compoundable in nature, the present petitions be disposed of in terms of the compromise and the impugned judgments be set aside.
310. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 has also submitted that he has no objection if the conviction of the petitioner is set aside in all the three cases and the criminal revisions are disposed of in terms of the compromise.
11. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that the offence being compoundable, they have no objection as the parties have entered into compromise out of Court and have filed joint compromise petition.
12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case , it appears that the matter has been settled between the petitioner and the opposite party No. 2 has no objection if the judgements of conviction of the petitioner are set aside in all the three cases and the revisions are disposed of in terms of the compromises.
13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the submissions, all the three revisions are disposed of in terms of compromise entered into between the parties and consequently the impugned judgments of conviction of the petitioner in all the three cases are hereby set aside. Consequently, impugned appellate judgements are also set-aside.
14. As the matters have been disposed of in terms of the compromise, there is no requirement for the petitioner to surrender before the Court concerned. Accordingly, the interlocutory applications seeking exemption from surrender are also closed.
15. Let this order be communicated through FAX /E-mail to the concerned court.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Binit 4