ANIL MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Aditya Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, learned counsel appearing for the State and Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this criminal revision petition has been filed against the judgment dtd. 16/7/2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Bokaro in Criminal Appeal No.31 of 2023 affirming the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, both dtd. 21/2/2023 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat in C.P. Case No.268 of 2021, whereby, the petitioner has been convicted under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and he has been sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year and six months and to pay compensation of Rs.12,00,000.00 to the complainant and in default of payment of fine, further direction is there to undergo S.I. for 30 days. He further submits that now a good sense has prevailed between the parties and both have compromised the matter and in light of the settlement, the amount to the tune of Rs.7,00,000.00 has been settled and the said amount has already been paid to the complainant by the petitioner. He next submits that the joint compromise petition has been filed in the form of I.A. No.9235 of 2024. He then submits that the said I.A. is filed on separate affidavit on behalf of both the sides. He submits that in view of that, this matter may kindly be disposed of.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the matter is arising under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.