Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 380 (UTT)

Shyam Singh v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-10-07

N.S.DHANIK

body2020
JUDGMENT N.S. Dhanik, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Criminal Revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 10.08.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/2nd FTC Haridwar, District Haridwar in Criminal Appeal No. 151 of 2010 and also against the judgment and order dated 08.10.2010 passed by the learned Second Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Criminal Case No. 341 of 2010. Along with this Criminal Revision, a joint compounding application has also been filed. In support of compounding application, affidavits have been filed by Mr. Shyam Singh (revisionist no. 1); Mr. Guruvachan (complainant); Mr. Brijesh (injured) and Smt. Hukum Devi (injured). In the compounding application it is stated that the dispute between the parties is settled amicably and now the complainant and the injured persons did not want to pursue the case further. 3. Mr. Shyam Singh (revisionist no. 1); Smt. Naresho (revisionist no. 2); Mr. Vijay Pal (revisionist no. 3); Mr. Guruvachan (complainant); Mr. Brijesh (injured) and Smt. Hukum Devi (injured) are present before this Court through Video Conferencing and they are duly identified by their respective Counsel. They verified the contents of the compounding application. 4. Learned State Counsel conceded that the matter can be compounded. 5. In view of the principle of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 as well as in Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 115 of 2012 (Dimpey Gujral vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh) decided on 06.12.2012, criminal proceedings can be quashed by this Court, if this Court is satisfied that matter has been settled between the parties amicably and parties are interested to restore peace and harmony between them. 6. Having considered submission of learned counsel for the parties, and after going through entire material available on record and also considering the statements of the complainant as well as the injured persons, I am satisfied that the matter has been settled between the parties amicably. Therefore, this Criminal Revision deserves to be allowed. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is allowed. Having considered submission of learned counsel for the parties, and after going through entire material available on record and also considering the statements of the complainant as well as the injured persons, I am satisfied that the matter has been settled between the parties amicably. Therefore, this Criminal Revision deserves to be allowed. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 10.08.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/2nd FTC Haridwar, District Haridwar in Criminal Appeal No. 151 of 2010 and also the judgment and order dated 08.10.2010 passed by the learned Second Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Criminal Case No. 341 of 2010 are hereby setaside. Conviction and sentence awarded to the revisionist is also set aside. They need not to surrender. 8. Compounding application is, accordingly, disposed of. 9. Let certified copy of this judgment and order, along with LCR, be sent to the Court concerned to ensure compliance of this order.