SURESH MOHANTY vs AMRUT KUMAR BEHERA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV NO.844 of 2026

CNR NO. ODHC010883582026

(In the matter of application under Section 442 read
with Section 438 of BNSS).

Suresh Mohanty Petitioner
…
-versus-
Amrut Kumar Behera Opposite Party
…


For Petitioner : Mr. A. Mishra, Advocate

For Opposite Party : Mr. A. Nayak, Advocate

CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY




DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:11.11.2026(ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

CRLREV No.844 of 2026 & IA No.1277 of 2026
1.
This judgment shall not only dispose of the
present Criminal Revision on compromise, but also the IA
No.1277 of 2026 filed by the revision-petitioner U/S.5 of
the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 1064
days in preferring the Criminal Revision to challenge the
concurring judgment of conviction and sentence passed by
the learned Appellate and Trial Courts against the revision-
petitioner for commission of offence U/S.138 of NI Act.
CRLREV No.844 of 2026 Page 1 of 5

2. The facts in this case, being largely undisputed are
not reiterated to avoid prolixity; but it is submitted by the
learned counsel for both the parties that the matter has
already been settled with payment of the compensation to
the complainant. In support of such contention, a joint
affidavit has been filed by the complainant and the wife of
the revision-petitioner-cum-convict towards amicable
settlement of the dispute.
3. Heard, Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for
the revision-petitioner and Mr. Abinash Nayak, learned
counsel who enters appearance for the OP in the Court
today by filing Vakalatnama, which is taken on record and
the joint affidavit filed by both the parties is put up for
consideration.
4. Admittedly, there is a delay of 1064 days, but
the OP-complainant has no objection for condonation of
delay. Undeniably, the petitioner has not only the right to
question his conviction and sentence, but also he cannot
be prevented to question his conviction and sentence
merely because he has filed the revision petition with
some delay and more particularly, when both the accused
CRLREV No.844 of 2026 Page 2 of 5

revision-petitioner and complainant have entered into
compromise, which is evident from the joint affidavit filed
in this case. In the aforesaid circumstance and situation,
this Court considers that interest of justice would be best
served, if the delay in preferring the revision is condoned.
Accordingly, the delay of 1064 days is, hereby, condoned.
Hence, IA No.1277 of 2026 stands disposed of.
5. It is not in dispute that a joint affidavit has been
filed in this case to evidence settlement between the
parties, but such affidavit has been signed by the
complainant and the wife of the convict-cum-revision-
petitioner being authorized by her husband. On being
queried, the complainant being identified by learned
counsel Mr. Abinash Nayak present in the Court confirms
that he has entered into compromise by receiving the
compensation amount and he further stated that he has
got no objection for compounding of the offence. It is
inter-alia stated in paragraph-4 of the joint affidavit about
settlement in the matter, which reads as under : -
“ 4. That the Opp. party (Amrut Kumar
Behera) remaining present before this
this Joint Affidavit
Hon’ble Court files
declaring out of own will & volition that I
CRLREV No.844 of 2026 Page 3 of 5

have received the full compensation amount
& I do not want to proceed further in this
case. I respectfully pray that the Hon’ble
Court may be kind enough to set aside the
Judgments of conviction passed by both the
Courts below & may acquit the petitioner as
the matter has been amicably resolved
between the parties.”

6. Section 147 of NI Act provides for composition
of offence and, therefore, the offence U/S.138 of NI Act is
compoundable in nature. In the aforesaid facts and
circumstance and on consideration of the materials placed
on record together with the joint affidavit filed by the
complainant and the wife of the convict-cum- revision-
petitioner and taking into account the positive attitude of
the parties in compromising the case and keeping in view
the law laid down by the Apex Court in Madhya Pradesh
State Legal Service Authority Vrs. Prateek Jain And
Another; (2014) 10 SCC 690 , this Court permits the
parties to compromise the case and compound the offence
U/S.138 of NI Act.
7. In the result, the CRLREV stands allowed on
compromise, but there is no order as to costs.
Consequently, the impugned judgments of conviction and
CRLREV No.844 of 2026 Page 4 of 5

sentence passed by the learned Appellate and Trial Courts
against the revision-petitioner are, hereby, set-aside and
the revision-petitioner is accordingly acquitted of the
charge for commission of offence U/S.138 of NI Act.
8. It is stated at the Bar that the revision-
petitioner is in custody and, therefore, he be set at liberty
forthwith, if his detention is not otherwise required in
connection with any other case. The Registrar (Judicial) is,
hereby, requested to send the warrant of release of the
convict to the concerned jail forthwith along with the copy
of this judgment so as to enable the jail authority to set
the convict-cum-revision-petitioner herein at liberty, if his
detention is not required otherwise in connection with any
other case.

(G. Satapathy)
Judge



Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
th
Dated the 11 day of November, 2026/Subhasmita
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS
Designation: Sr. Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 11-Nov-2026 18:22:24
CRLREV No.844 of 2026 Page 5 of 5