Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 475 (MP)

Rakesh v. State of M. P.

2013-04-08

BRIJ KISHORE DUBE

body2013
JUDGMENT : Complainant/injured, Govind Giri, present in person and has been identified by Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate. Revisionists, present in person and have been identified by Shri Arun Dudawat, Advocate. 2. The case is listed for hearing on I.A.No.1367/2013, an application under Sections 320 (1) & (2) of Cr.P.C. for compounding the offence. 3. Heard and perused the record. 4. This Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment dated 28.07.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Karera, District Shivpuri in Criminal Appeal No.10/2009, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.12.2008 passed in Criminal Case No.991/2006, by the J.M.F.C., Karera, whereby the petitioners/revisionist No.1, Rakesh has been convicted under Section 324/34 of IPC, while other petitioners No.2 to 4/revisionists were convicted under Section 324 of IPC for causing injuries to Govind Giri and sentenced each of them to suffer one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- respectively. 5. The complainant/injured by presenting himself submits that the revisionists/petitioners are his family members and he wants to maintain cordial relation with them and all the disputes prevailing between them have been settled amicably. The alleged offence was committed on 28.09.2006, thereafter, a considerable period has been elapsed and, therefore, compromise application may be allowed Considering the reasons assigned in the compromise application and in the backdrop facts and circumstances and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the compromise to compound the offence is permitted and compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted in respect of the offence punishable under Sections 324 or 324/34 of IPC, as the case may be. 6. Consequently, in view of the compromise, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are hereby setaside and the revisionist/petitioner No.1, Rakesh is acquitted from the charge under Section 324/34 of IPC while other revisionists/petitioners are acquitted from the charge under Section 324 of IPC and the fine amount deposited be refunded to the petitioners. 7. With the aforesaid, the Criminal Revision stands disposed of, accordingly.