Mahendra Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 250 UK

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

          Compounding Application No. 01 of 2021
                              In
                 Criminal Revision No. 14 of 2021


Mahendra Singh                                  ...Revisionist


                             Vs.

State of Uttarakhand & another                 ...Respondents



Mr. R.S. Azad, learned counsel for the revisionist.
Mrs. Mamta Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Manoj Joshi, learned counsel for respondent no. 2.


                                    Dated: 18th January, 2021


Hon'ble 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 03.12.2020 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge Haridwar, District Haridwar in Criminal Appeal No. 211 of 2018 and also against the judgment and order dated 22.09.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate/1st Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Haridwar, District Haridwar in Complaint Case No. 2048 of 2014. Along with this Criminal Revision, a joint compounding application has also been filed. In support of compounding application, affidavits have been filed by Mr. Mahendra Singh (revisionist and Mr. Ashish Saini (respondent no. 2/complainant). In the compounding application, it is stated that the dispute between the parties is settled amicably and

now the respondent no. 2/complainant did not want to pursue the case further.

3. Mr. Mahendra Singh (revisionist) and Mr. Ashish Saini (respondent no. 2/complainant) 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 reported in 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 complainant/respondent no. 2, 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 03.12.2020 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge Haridwar, District Haridwar in Criminal Appeal No. 211 of 2018 and also the

judgment and order dated 22.09.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate/1st Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Haridwar, District Haridwar in Complaint Case No. 2048 of 2014 are hereby set-aside. Conviction and sentence awarded to the revisionist is also set-aside. He needs 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.

(N.S. Dhanik, J.) Vacation Judge 18.01.2021 AK