Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Sudha Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr

Sudha Devi vs State of Jharkhand and anr

Type Court Judgment Court Jharkhand Decided Sep 17, 2012
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/971941

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Jharkhand High Court
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sudha Devi

Respondent

State of Jharkhand and anr

Excerpt

.....submitting that the case has since been compromised between the parties out of the court and the matter has been settled between the parties for rs. 1,90,000/- (rupees one lakh and ninety-thousand only) apart from the litigation cost of rs. 5,000/- (rupees five thousand only), which has already been paid to the opposite party no.2. the said application has been affidavited by the petitioner as well as the complainant opposite party no.2. learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has accepted the compromise between the parties. learned counsel for the petitioner has handed over a demand draft for rs. 1,90,000/- to the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 in this court. -2- in view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, as also in view of the fact that offence under section 138 of the n.i. act is compoundable in nature, the offence is allowed to be compounded. accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.6.2008 passed by sri amit shekhar, learned judicial magistrate, 1st class, ranchi, in complaint case no. 255 of 2003|t.r. no. 1114 of 2008, as also, the judgment passed by learned additional sessions judge-v, ranchi, on 16.1.2012 in criminal appeal no. 83 of 2008, are hereby, set aside on the basis of the compounding of the offence. consequently, the petitioner is acquitted of the charge and she is discharged from the liabilities of her bail bond. this criminal revision as well as the aforesaid interlocutory application stand allowed. ( h. c. mishra, j.) r.kr.

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 120 of 2012 with I. A. No. 1093 of 2012 Sudha Devi ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Another .. Opposite Parties -------- CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. P.K. Nayak, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Rajeev Anand, Advocate ------ 3/ 17.09.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State, as also learned counsel for the complainant opposite party No.2. This revision has been filed against the Judgment and Order dated 18.6.2008 passed by Sri Amit Shekhar, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi, in Complaint Case No. 255 of 2003| T.R. No. 1114 of 2008, whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner were upheld by the learned Appellate Court below by Judgment dated 16.1.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Ranchi, in Criminal Appeal No. 83 of 2008. I.A. No. 1093 of 2012 has been filed jointly by the parties submitting that the case has since been compromised between the parties out of the Court and the matter has been settled between the parties for Rs. 1,90,000/- (rupees one lakh and ninety-thousand only) apart from the litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- (rupees five thousand only), which has already been paid to the opposite party No.

2. The said application has been affidavited by the petitioner as well as the complainant opposite party No.

2. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has accepted the compromise between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has handed over a demand draft for Rs. 1,90,000/- to the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 in this Court. -2- In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, as also in view of the fact that offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is compoundable in nature, the offence is allowed to be compounded. Accordingly, the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 18.6.2008 passed by Sri Amit Shekhar, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi, in Complaint Case No. 255 of 2003|T.R. No. 1114 of 2008, as also, the Judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Ranchi, on 16.1.2012 in Criminal Appeal No. 83 of 2008, are hereby, set aside on the basis of the compounding of the offence. Consequently, the petitioner is acquitted of the charge and she is discharged from the liabilities of her bail bond. This criminal revision as well as the aforesaid interlocutory application stand allowed. ( H. C. Mishra, J.) R.Kr.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial