Nasim Akhter @ Nasim Akhtar vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 1042 Jhar

                                             1          Cr. Revision No.1336 of 2022



               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         Cr. Revision No.1336 of 2022

         Nasim Akhter @ Nasim Akhtar                  .....   Petitioner
                                 Versus
         1. The State of Jharkhand
         2. Md. Nasim Ansari                          ....      Opposite parties

               CORAM:         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

         For the petitioner         :       Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhaya, Advocate
         For the State              :       Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, APP
         For the Informant          :       Mr. Anurag Raj, Advocate
                                        -----

4/02.03.2023 Heard learned counsel Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned APP Mr. Rakesh Ranjan appearing on behalf of State, assisted by learned counsel Mr. Anurag Raj appearing on behalf of the informant.

This criminal revision is directed against the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.11.2015 passed by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Jamshedpur in connection with G.R. Case No.677 of 2014, T.R. No.01 of 2015, whereby and whereunder the learned court below convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 411 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of one year and six months and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner was directed to further undergo simple imprisonment for the period of fifteen days for the offence under section 411 I.P.C. and also for quashing of judgment dated 30.05.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-XII, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur whereby and whereunder Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 2015 preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the trial court was confirmed.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant jointly submitted that it is a case of theft of motorcycle, for which this petitioner has been convicted under section 411 of IPC and now during pending of this criminal revision application, both the parties have resolved their disputes

amicably and a joint compromise petition vide I.A. No. 11376 of 2022 has been filed. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been convicted under section 411 of IPC, which is compoundable in nature.

Learned counsel of petitioner has submitted that one I.A. No. 10999 of 2022 has been filed for condonation of delay in filing this criminal revision application, which has taken place without any willful default on behalf of the petitioner for delay of 1196 days. It has also been pointed out that the judgment of the trial court was passed on 27.11.2015 and the appellate court has passed the judgment on 30.05.2017, whereas this petitioner had gone to Oman for job in the year 2014 itself and therefore about his conviction either by the trial court or the appellate court did not come in the knowledge of the petitioner and therefore this petitioner could not surrender before the court below and also could not file this criminal revision application in time and therefore there is no willful default on the part of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the compromise has taken place between both the parties and therefore if the delay in filing this criminal revision is not condoned, the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of informant also submitted that the compromise has taken place and the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State also did not controvert this fact that the compromise has taken place between the parties and the offence, i.e. Section 411 of IPC, under which, the petitioner has been convicted is compoundable in nature.

Having taken into consideration the aforesaid submissions, the delay in filing the criminal revision is condoned and the I.A. No. 10999 of 2022 is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

Further it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that I.A. No. 11001 of 2022 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under Rule 159 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001 for grant of exemption to the petitioner from surrendering before the learned court below in view of the fact that the compromise has taken place between both the parties including the petitioner Nasim Akhtar and the informant

PW-2 Md. Nasim Ansari. In support of its contention, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relied upon the rulings of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vivek Roy Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2016(2) JCR 66 (SC).

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant did not refute the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner and learned APP also submitted that let a suitable order for exemption from surrendering the petitioner in the court below be passed in the interest of justice in the light of the fact that compromise has taken place.

Accordingly the petitioner is exempted from surrendering in the Court below under Rule 159 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001 having taken into consideration that both the parties have resolved their disputes amicably and compromise has taken place between both the parties.

Accordingly the I.A. No.11001 of 2022 also gets allowed and disposed of.

Further learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the IA No. 11376 of 2022 has been filed, which is duly sworn on affidavit by the petitioner Nasim Akhter and informant Md. Nasim Ansari and they have jointly submitted that this interlocutory application has been filed by way of compromise that took place between both the parties and both have compromised the matter outside of the court and both the parties have entered into an agreement on 17/11/2022 on certain terms and conditions and now the informant has no grievance against the accused- petitioner and he does not want to proceed with this case further. The settlement agreement arrived at between the parties on 17/11/2022, is also annexed with this I.A. 11376 of 2022.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant also submitted that the compromise has taken place and now there is no grievance between them. Learned APP also submitted that the compromise has taken place and the offence under which the petitioner has been convicted, i.e. under section 411 of IPC is compoundable in nature.

Having heard the parties, perused the record of this case. Having taken into consideration the aforesaid facts and joint compromise petition filed on behalf of both the parties including the petitioner and the informant vide I.A. No.11376 of 2022, it is found that after conducting the full-fledged trial, the petitioner was convicted under section 411 of IPC, which is a compoundable in nature. Now the matter has been resolved between both the parties and there is no grievance between them and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of informant also submitted that let this criminal revision be allowed to be compounded in terms of compromise and settlement arrived at between the both the parties.

As such, the impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned court below and confirmed by the learned appellate court are fit to be set-aside in terms of compromise and settlement arrived at between both the parties and this criminal Revision is fit to be allowed as compounded.

Accordingly, this criminal revision is allowed to be compounded and I.A. No.11376 of 2022 also gets disposed of accordingly. The judgment dated 30.05.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge- XII, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur and the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.11.2015 passed by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Jamshedpur, in connection with G.R. Case No.677 of 2014, T.R. No.01 of 2015 are set-aside in view of the compromise and settlement arrived at between both the parties. The petitioner is acquitted of the charges levelled against him in this case and he is discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds, if any in this case.

(Navneet Kumar, J.) R.Kumar