Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 203 (ORI)

BAIKUNTHA CHAMPATI v. STATE OF ORISSA

2009-03-06

I.MAHANTY

body2009
ORDER I. Mahanty, J. - Heard Sri U.N. Mishra, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 2. The present revision has been filed seeking to challenge the order of conviction dated 18.5.2005 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Khurda in G.R. Case No. 224 of 2001 (Trial No. 1345 of 2001) convicting the Petitioners u/s 498(A)/34 I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 and in default, to undergo further R.I. for a period of 8 months each and further, challenge has also been made to a subsequent confirmation of the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence dismissing the Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2005 vide judgment dated 15.9.2006 by the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Khurda. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that the present case arises out of the matrimonial dispute and the informant has entered into a compromise with the accused Petitioners. In terms of the informant-Ullasa Dei ' Champati, she has been provided with a share of Petitioner No. 1's pension, gratuity, provident fund, immovable property and also other service benefits. 4. In view of the aforesaid contentions, prayer has been made to dispose of the revision petition in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties. 5. Sri U.N. Mishra, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanghamitra Ghosh Vs. Kajal Kumar Ghosh, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the case arising out of conviction u/s 498(A) I.P.C. read with Sections 3 and 4 D.P. Act. 6. Relying on the same, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that the compromise may be accepted the revision petition may be allowed and the conviction order may be set aside. 7. Considering the fact that the parties to the litigation have arrived at an amicable settlement and further that the parties being present in Court affirm the terms of the settlement filed, no real purpose would be served in keeping the proceeding pending in the present case since the interest of the parties have been adequately taken care of in terms of the settlement arrived at between themselves. Therefore, on consideration of the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the case law referred hereinabove, I allow the revision petition and set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the Petitioners in G.R. Case No. 224 of 2001 by the learned S.D.J.M., Khurda and Subsequent dismissal of the Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2005 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Khurda confirming the said order of conviction and sentence. 8. Parties are directed to abide by the terms of the settlement filed in this application. Petitioner No. 1 is directed to produce the certified copy of this order before the Railway Authority along with the copy of the compromise reached between the parties in order to give effect to the same and the authority shall do well to act in accordance with the compromise. 9. Criminal Revision is allowed. Misc. Case No. 2354 of 2008 is also disposed of. Final Result : Allowed