Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 271 (JHR)

Amitabh Pandey v. State of Jharkhand

2019-01-29

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2019
JUDGMENT : I.A. No. 9926 of 2018 with I.A. No. 10218 of 2018 1. The petitioner has pleaded that on account of delay in obtaining a certified copy of the order passed in Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 2017 and the talk of compromise between the parties, a delay of 117 days has occurred in filing this revision petition. He has asserted that with the intervention of the well-wishers the parties have now amicably settled the dispute amongst themselves and now the entire amount awarded by the trial court has been paid to the complainant. I.A. No. 10218 of 2018 which records compromise between the parties has been signed by the complainant-O.P. No. 2. 2. On the Court's query the learned counsels appearing for the parties state that the parties have honoured the compromise between them. 3. In view of the aforesaid facts, I.A. No. 9926 of 2018 and I.A. No. 10218 of 2018 are allowed. The petitioner is exempted from surrendering in terms of Rule 159 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001. Cr. Rev. No. 1597 of 2018 4. By an order dated 17.05.2017 passed in Complaint Case No. 936 of 2013 which was converted to T.R. No. 343 of 2017 the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay Rs. 2,97,000/- as compensation. This order has been affirmed by the appellate court in Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 2017. 5. As noticed hereinabove, the parties have amicably settled their dispute and now the complainant has been paid the entire amount which has been admitted by him by signing the petition vide I.A. No. 10218 of 2018. Now, keeping the guidelines in “Narinder Singh and Others Vrs. State of Punjab and Another” reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 in mind and the facts disclosed in the present proceeding, I am of the opinion that in exercise of powers under section 482 Cr.P.C the sentence of simple imprisonment of six months imposed upon the petitioner can be quashed. Accordingly, the order of sentence dated 17.05.2017 passed in Complaint Case No. 936 of 2013 is quashed. 6. In the result, Cr. Rev. No. 1597 of 2018 stands partly allowed.