Jharkhand High Court
Ashok Giri vs State Of Jharkhand on 11 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 216 of 2004
---------
1. Ashok Giri.
2. Ishwar Giri.
3. Tahli Devi.
4. Rampati Giri.
5. Nirmala Devi. ..... Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand.
2. Anita Devi. ..... Opposite Parties
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioner : None
For the State : Ms.Vandana Bharti, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : None
---------
03/Dated: 11th March, 2022
Order dated 20.05.2004 reads as follows:-
" In pursuance of Court's order, Mrs. Anita Devi (O.P.
no.2) has appeared in person. She informed this Court that
she intends to compromise the matter and wants to live with
the husband and in-laws.
Having heard the parties and being satisfied
with the ground shown therein, the delay of about three
years in filing this criminal revision application is condoned
and the petition for condonation of delay at Flag-A (I.A. No.
268 of 2004) is hereby allowed.
This criminal revision application is admitted for
hearing.
of 1994, T.R. No. 231 of 1997 from the court of Sub-divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Koderma.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, I
direct that during the pendency of the revision application,
the petitioners, namely, 1. Ashok Giri, 2. Ishwar Giri, 3. Tahli
Devi, 4. Rampati Giri and 5. Nirmala Devi shall be released
on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand)
each with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of trial court (learned Sub-divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Koderma) in connection with C.18 of 1994, T.R.
Case no. 231 of 1997).
The I.A. no. 268 of 2004 stands disposed of."
2. Pursuant to the aforesaid order a counter-affidavit
has been filed on behalf of the O.P.No.2, wherein it has
been specifically stated that she is living in her matrimonial
house and is being well treated by the accused persons and
the misunderstanding/grievances with them no longer
exists. It is further stated in the said affidavit that the
compromise entered between the O.P. No.2 and the accused
persons was without any influence. It is further stated that
the O.P. No.2 has no grievances against any of the accused
persons.
3. Ms. Vandana Bharti, is present for the State,
however, none appears for the O.P. No.2.
4. By going through the averments made in the
counter-affidavit filed by O.P. No.2 it appears that both the
parties are having a comfortable life and due to
misunderstanding the grievances arose.
5. In view of the aforesaid fact, since the offence is not
public in nature and it is a private dispute, interest of
justice would be sufficed by acquitting the petitioner after
accepting the compromise affidavit.
6. Ms. Vandana Singh, learned Adll. P.P. also submits
that now in view of the affidavit filed by the O.P. No.2,
nothing subsides to be adjudicated by this Court and in
view of the compromise between the parties the case may
be disposed of.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and the specific
averments made in the counter-affidavit filed by O.P. No.2,
the instant revision application is allowed and judgment of
conviction and order and sentence order dated 17.07.1997
passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Koderma in Complaint Case No. 18 of 1994, T.R. Case No.
2310 of 1997and the judgment dated 31.05.2001 passed by
1st Additional Sessions Judge, Koderma in Cr. Appeal No.
146 of 1997 are quashed and set aside.
8. With the aforesaid observations, this revision
application is disposed of.
9. The petitioners shall be discharged from the liability
of their bail bonds.
10. Let the copy of this order be communicated to the
courts below.
11. Let the lower court record be sent to the court
concerned forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Amardeep/
