Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 37 (JHR)

M. v. Ratnakar Rao VS State Of Jharkhand

2018-01-04

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2018
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – Heard Mr. Suraj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Shivam Sahay, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 22.06.2005 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2000 by which the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 15.02.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Jamshedpur in C1 Case No. 131 of 1997 convicting the petitioners for the offence under Sections 323/427/452/506/380/34 and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for various terms has been affirmed. 3. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were officials of TISCO who have been implicated as they were trying to remove the encroachment. He further submits that the petitioner no. 2 was involved in 6 encroachment proceedings and even before the trial court, the informant had failed to show that he was in possession of the land in question or that he has a valid right and title over the said land. He further submits that after the dismissal of the appeal, the matter has been compromised between both the parties for which he has referred to I. A. No. 1051 of 2006 as well as I. A. No. 1673 of 2006. He further submits that since the matter has been compromised between the parties, the judgment of conviction and sentence deserves to be set aside. 4. Mr. Shivam Sahay, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has accepted the factum of compromise and has stated that he does not have any grievance against the petitioner. 5. The complaint case was instituted by the opposite party no. 2 in which it was stated that the complainant had got 6 Bighas of cultivable land in Mouja Uliyan in Khata no. 1217, Plot no. 4 over which he is in peaceful possession for 30 years. In the survey settlement, the land was recorded as Anabad Bihar Sarkar and when he learnt about the final publication of the survey on 04.02.1997, he has filed a petition under Section 90 of the CNT Act. 1217, Plot no. 4 over which he is in peaceful possession for 30 years. In the survey settlement, the land was recorded as Anabad Bihar Sarkar and when he learnt about the final publication of the survey on 04.02.1997, he has filed a petition under Section 90 of the CNT Act. It has been alleged that on 22/23.031997, the petitioner along with 15-16 persons variously armed had entered into his premises and demolished the boundary wall assaulted the brother of the complainant and had also taken away a box containing a sum of Rs. 12,000/-. 6. Upon conducting inquiry, cognizance was taken for the offences under Sections 323/427/452/380/506/34 of the I.P.C. In course of trial since the prosecution had able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the petitioners were convicted and sentenced to various terms vide judgment dated 15.02.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur. On an appeal being preferred by the petitioner the same resulted in its dismissal vide judgment dated 22.06.2005 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2000. 7. Present revision application was dismissed on account of nonappearance for which a restoration application was preferred by the petitioner along with I. A. No. 1051 of 2006 in which it was stated that the matter between both the parties have been compromised. After this revision application was restored, a further interlocutory application being I. A. No. 1673 of 2006 was filed which also includes copy of I. A. No. 1051 of 2006 as its enclosure. The matter seems to have been compromised between both the parties which can be derived from I. A. No. 1051 of 2006 as well as I. A. No. 1673 of 2006. The same factual position exists as on today as has been stated by the learned counsel for the respective parties. In view of the compromise which has been effected and which has been mentioned hereinabove, this application is allowed and the judgments dated 22.06.2005 and 15.02.2000 are hereby set aside.