Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 420 (UTT)

Gurbachan Singh v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-11-03

N.S.DHANIK

body2020
JUDGMENT N.S. Dhanik, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties on the compounding application. 2. This Criminal Revision has been filed by the revisionists against the judgment and order dated 30.09.2013 passed by learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar District Haridwar in Appeal No. 157 of 2010 and judgment and order dated 04.10.2010 passed by 2nd Civil Judge (JD/Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 340 of 2010 and Case Crime No. 97 of 1999 P.S. Kankhal, District Haridwar under Sections 452, 323, 325, 504 and 506 IPC. Along with this Criminal Revision, a joint compounding application has also been filed. In support of compounding application, affidavits have been filed by Gurbachan Singh (revisionist no. 1) and Mr. Shyam Singh (complainant/injured) and Mrs. Naresho Devi (Injured). In the compounding application it is stated that the dispute between the parties is settled amicably and now the respondent no. 2 and injured did not want to pursue the case further. 3. Mr. Gurbachan Singh (revisionist no. 1), Mr. Brijesh (revisionist no. 2), Smt. Hukumdai (revisionist no. 3) and Mr. Shyam Singh (complainant/injured) and Smt. Naresho 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 statement of the injured, I am satisfied that the matter has been settled between the parties amicably. Therefore, this compounding application deserves to be allowed. 7. Accordingly compounding application is allowed. 6. Having considered submission of learned counsel for the parties, and after going through entire material available on record and also considering the statement of the injured, I am satisfied that the matter has been settled between the parties amicably. Therefore, this compounding application deserves to be allowed. 7. Accordingly compounding application is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 30.09.2013 passed by learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar District Haridwar in Appeal No. 157 of 2010 and judgment and order dated 04.10.2010 passed by 2nd Civil Judge (JD/Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 340 of 2010 and Case Crime No. 97 of 1999 P.S. Kankhal, District Haridwar under Sections 452, 323, 325, 504 and 506 IPC is set aside. Conviction and sentence awarded to the revisionists is also set aside. They need not to surrender. The Criminal Revision stands disposed of, accordingly.