Ram Pyare And ORS. v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. 163 of 2013

1. Ram Pyare S/o Shri Daharu, Aged about 40 years

2. Kanhaiya S/o Shri Ram Pyare, aged about 18 years

3. Joidha Ram S/o Shri Daharu, aged about 35 years All resident of Sakinan Khamhariya, PS Baraduar, Tehasil Jaijaipur, Dist. Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ---- Applicants

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh Through District Collector, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent For Applicants :

Shri Sandeep Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Shri U. K. S. Chandel, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 17/06/2016 Heard on I.A. No.04 of 2016, application under Section 320(6) CrPC seeking permission for compromise.

2.

Counsel for the applicants submits that pending the revision before this Court, the parties have settled the dispute out of Court and in the process, the complainant Muritram does not want to pursue with the case any further and also he does not have any intention for getting the applicants being sent to jail in the light of the order of conviction. 3.

Complainant Muritram is present before this Court along with his advocate Shri Animesh Verma.

4.

On a specific query being put to the complainant he makes a categorical statement that they have settled the dispute amicably and does not want the applicants to be sent to jail.

5.

In view of the categorical statement made by the complainant, this Court is of the opinion that once when the complainant and the accused have settled their matter and buried the dispute and differences, it would be an important consideration for the High Court while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to compound the offence. The opinion of this Court stands fortified from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab1 and Another and also in the case of Narinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another2. 6.

In view of the statement made by the complainant and keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the Case of B. S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another3 and also in the case of Gain Singh (Supra) and Narinder Singh (Supra), this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case where the parties can be permitted to compound the offence.

7.

Accordingly, I.A. No.04/16 is allowed and the parties are permitted to compromise the offence. Consequently, the applicants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them.

8. The present Criminal Revision accordingly stands disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) JUDGE Bhola 2012 (10) SCC 303 2014 (6) SCC 466 2003 (4) SCC 675