- (1.) I.A. No.6614 of 2015 The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner with a prayer to exempt the petitioner from surrendering in the court below 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner and the complainant have compromised the case. He has also referred to the decision in the case of Vivek Rai & Anr. Vs. High Court of Jharkhand through Registrar General & Ors. in a writ petition (Criminal) No.61 of 2012 and submitted that Supreme Court has held that "the Rule does not affect the inherent power of the High Court to exempt the requirement of surrender in exceptional situation". Learned counsel for the complainant has not disputed the fact that the parties have compromised the case and joint compromise petition bearing I.A. No.6638 of 2015 has been filed. 3. Considering the fact that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and the joint compromise petition brought on record, the petitioner is exempted from surrendering in the court below and Rule 159 of the High court of Jharkhand Rules, is hereby waived. 4. Accordingly, I.A. No.6614 of 2015 stands allowed. Cr. Revision No. No.1402 of 2015 This criminal revision application has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 02.09.2015, passed in Cr. Appeal No.187 of 2014 whereby, the learned Additional Sessions Judge V, Jamshedpur, has affirmed the order dated 15.07.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur in C/1 Case No.3709 of 2010, convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, and sentenced him to pay Rs.1,26,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty six thousand) as compensation and in default thereof to undergo S.I for one year.
(2.) Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner, Deepak Kumar Pandey had taken a friendly loan for the business purpose from the complainant/ Bijay Prakash Pandey amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand) with a promise to repay the same at the earliest. That the petitioner had issued a post dated cheque of 27.10.2010 in favour of the complainant amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- for the repayment of the said loan. When the said cheque was presented for encashment by the complainant to the bank, it was dishonoured due to 'Insufficient Fund' in the account of the drawer. Thereafter the complainant sent a legal notice to the petitioner on 03.11.2010 for payment of the loan amount. Despite the service of notice, the petitioner did not make the payment, whereupon, a complaint Case was filed. That after enquiry, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur took cognizance under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur on the basis of the evidence and materials available on record, convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, which was affirmed in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge V, Jamshedpur by the aforesaid impugned order.
(3.) Learned counsel, for the petitioner, has submitted that the parties have settled their dispute out of court and a joint compromise petition has been filed in I.A No.6638 of 2015. It is submitted that as per the agreement dated 16.10.2015, annexed with the joint compromise petition, the petitioner is ready to pay Rs.1,20,000/- to the complaint. The complainant has now no grievance against the petitioner. It is submitted that since the parties have compromised the case, the order dated 02.09.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge V, Jamshedpur in Cr. Appeal No.187 of 2014, and the order dated 15.07.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur in C/1 Case No.3709 of 2010 be quashed. It has also been submitted that the compromise be accepted and the offence be allowed to be compounded considering, the fact that the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is compoundable in nature.;