Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 46 (JHR)

Om Prakash Singh v. State Of Jharkhand

2020-01-10

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has challenged the judgment of conviction dated 29.03.2016 passed in C.P. Case No.1149 of 2011 by which he has been convicted and sentenced to S.I for six months, as also the judgment dated 29.09.2016 passed in Cr. Appeal No.78 of 2016. By way of compensation, he has been directed to pay Rs.14 Lacs to the complainant. His appeal against the judgment dated 29.03.2016 vide, Cr. Appeal No.78 of 2016 has been dismissed by judgment dated 29.09.2016. 2. In the present proceeding, by an order dated 11.07.2018, he has been granted bail by this Court. 3. Now, a joint compromise petition vide, I.A. No.6019 of 2019 has been filed. In this application, the petitioner has stated as under: 4. ''That due to intervention of the well wisher and friends, the entire confusions and misunderstanding giving arise to the lodging of the complaint case has been sorted out between the petitioner and the complainant/opposite party. 5. That the entire dispute giving arise to the lodging of the complaint against the petitioner and the complainant/opposite party no.2 have been sorted out amicably by way of mutual understanding and there remains no any grievance or lis between the parties any further. 6. That the complainant/opposite party no.2 on his own free will has agreed/decided to settle and compromise the matter with the petitioner and he has no further grievances with the petitioner. 7. That the complainant/opposite party no.2 in view of the fact that now there remains no grievance of either of the parties against each other does not want to proceed with the case against the petitioner.'' 4. This application is supported by the affidavits of the petitioner and the complainant. 5. Mr. Lukesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the complainant submits that the complainant has settled the matter with the accused-petitioner on payment of Rs.7,40,000/- which is the cheque amount. Out of the said amount, Rs.4 Lacs was deposited by the petitioner in the court below and a cheque of Rs.3,40,000/- has been handed over by the petitioner to the complainant. 6. The learned counsels appearing for the parties submit that now, since the parties have amicably settled their dispute amongst themselves, the judgment in C.P. Case No.1149 of 2011 as affirmed by the appellate court in Cr. Appeal No.78 of 2016, needs to be set-aside. 7. Mr. 6. The learned counsels appearing for the parties submit that now, since the parties have amicably settled their dispute amongst themselves, the judgment in C.P. Case No.1149 of 2011 as affirmed by the appellate court in Cr. Appeal No.78 of 2016, needs to be set-aside. 7. Mr. Ranjan Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has remained in custody for about two months. 8. In '' Manjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.'' 2019 SCC Online SC 896 , the Hon''ble Supreme Court has observed that compromise between the parties is a relevant fact for quantum of punishment. 9. In view of the judgment in ''Manjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.'' (supra) and keeping in mind compromise between the parties, who have filed a compromise petition, while upholding the judgment of conviction of the petitioner, sentence awarded to him is modified to the period already undergone by him. 10. Cr. Rev. No.1651 of 2016 stands disposed of, in the above terms. The amount of Rs. 4 Lacs deposited by the petitioner shall be released in favour of the complainant. 11. Accordingly, I.A. No. 7478 of 2018 and I.A. No. 6019 of 2019 stand disposed of.