Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 189 (JHR)

Dilip Kumar Jha v. State of Jharkhand

2017-01-25

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
ORDER : I.A. No. 8468 of 2016 This interlocutory application has been preferred by the starling petitioners for exemption from surrender in terms of Rule 159 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules, 2001 in view of the fact that the matter has been compromised between the parties. 2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of the settlement which has been arrived at between the parties, an amount of Rs.10,000/- has already been deposited in the account of the opposite party no. 2. 3. Considering the fact that the compromise has been effected between the parties and good relations have been restored, this application is allowed. Petitioner is exempted from surrender in terms of Rule 159 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules, 2001. 4. I.A. No. 8468 of 2016 is disposed of. Cr. M.P. No. 1210 of 2016 : 5. Heard the parties. 6. In this application, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 5.8.2016, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Cr. Appeal No. 51 of 2011, by which the appeal preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.7.2011, passed by the learned S.D.J.M, Madhupur at Deoghar in P.C.R. Case No. 65 of 2005 has been affirmed. 7. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 who are Gotiyas has been settled. Learned counsel has referred to a joint compromise petition being I.A. No. 8184 of 2016 which substantiates his contention that the matter has been compromised. It has further been submitted that the petitioners have willingly deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- in the account of opposite party no. 2. 8. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 has accepted the factum of compromise and has accepted that an amount of Rs.10,000/- has been deposited in her account. It has been submitted that the dispute being personal in nature and since the same has been settled, opposite party no. 2 does not want to proceed against the petitioner in the criminal case. 9. A complaint case was instituted by the opposite party no. 2 being P.C.R Case No.65 of 2005, in which it was stated that the petitioners had assaulted her with fists and blows and administered night soil into her mouth. 2 does not want to proceed against the petitioner in the criminal case. 9. A complaint case was instituted by the opposite party no. 2 being P.C.R Case No.65 of 2005, in which it was stated that the petitioners had assaulted her with fists and blows and administered night soil into her mouth. Upon enquiry, cognizance was taken for the offence under sections 448 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of Prohibition of Witch Craft (Daain) Act. After the trial concluded, the petitioners were convicted for the offence under sections 448 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of Prohibition of Witch Craft (Daain) Act and were sentenced to undergo S.I. for three months for the offence under section 448 of IPC and S.I for six months for the offence under section 323 of IPC and undergo S.I. for three months for the offence under section ¾ of Prevention of Witch (Daain) Protection Act. An appeal was preferred by the petitioners being Cr. Appeal No. 51 of 2011, which, however, was dismissed on 5.8.2016. It appears that during pendency of the application, matter has been settled between the parties as good sense has prevailed between them on the intervention of well wishers. Although there was no mention of any monetary transaction in the joint compromise petition, which was entered into between the parties but as a good gesture, the petitioners have deposited Rs.10,000/- in the account of opposite party no. 2. Since the matter has been compromised and opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed further in the criminal case, this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 5.8.2016, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Cr. Appeal No. 51 of 2011, by which the appeal preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.7.2011, passed by the learned S.D.J.M, Madhupur at Deoghar in P.C.R. Case No. 65 of 2005 has been affirmed, are set aside. 10. Pending I.As. also stand disposed of.