Chattisgarh High Court
Arvind Mandal And Ors vs State Of Chhattisgarh 42 Wpc/284/2019 ... on 30 January, 2019
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Revision No. 527 of 2004
1. Arvind Mandal S/o. Rakanksh Aged 40 years,
2. Sushant Mandal S/o. Arvind Mandal, Aged 23 years,
3. Prashant Mandal, S/o. Mavi Sandhu Mandal, Aged 26 years,
4. Viful Mandal, S/o. Jitendra Mandal, Aged 26 years,
All resident of P.V. 106, Police Station Pakhanjoor, District Kanker
(C.G.)
---- Applicants
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through the District Magistrate Kanker
District Kanker (C.G.)
---- Respondent
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Applicants : Mr. Arun Kochar, Advocate For the complainant : Ms. Aparajita Gaikward, Advocate For the State : Mr. I Lakra, Dy. Govt. Advocate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vimla Singh Kapoor Order on Board on 30.01.2019
1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 29.09.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Kanker, in Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2003, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.01.2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhanupratappur in Criminal Case No. 488/1997, convicting and sentencing the accused/applicants under Sections 323/34 and 325/34 IPC and sentencing them to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each under 2 Section 323/25 IPC, to undergo RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each under Section 325/34 IPC plus default stipulation.
2. During the pendency of this revision petition, the applicants and the respondent are stated to have filed a joint application I. A. No. 02/2019 under Section 320 (2)(6) and (8) CrPC for compounding the offence. The said application is duly supported by their affidavits in which it is stated that they have amicably settled their dispute out side the Court. Such a statement has been made by them before Additional Registrar (Judicial) also. Since the offence alleged is compoundable in the nature, this Court finds nothing to deviate from the statement made by the parties for compromise to be arrived at between them.
3. Thus, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the statement of the parties made before this Court and thereafter before the Additional Registrar (Judicial) and keeping in view of the judgment passed in AIR 2010 SC 276 (K.M. Inbrahim v. K.P. Mohammed), as the parties have amicably settled their dispute in terms of section 147 of the Act, the application No. 02 of 2019 for compounding the offence is allowed and the parties are permitted to compound the offence. Effect of this compromise be the acquittal of the applicant of the charge under Sections 323/34 and 325/34 IPC.
4. Revision is thus allowed and the order dated 29.09.2004 is set aside.
Sd/-
(Vimla Singh Kapoor) JUDGE Santosh