Salman Khan vs The State Of Uttarakhand And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 324 UK

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                Criminal Revision No.80 of 2022

Salman Khan                                    ............... Revisionist

                                  Versus

The State of Uttarakhand and Another                      ...... Respondent

Mr. D. P. Bhatt, learned counsel for the revisionist.
Mr. V.K. Jemini, learned Dy.A.G. for the State.
Mr. Ajay Joshi, learned counsel for private respondent.

Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.

This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 04.11.2019 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khatima in Criminal Case No.391 of 2013, State v. Salman and others, as well as the order dated 06.01.2022 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Khatima in Criminal Appeal No.387/2019, 'Salman and others vs. State'.

2. Admit.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Compounding Application (IA/1/2022) has been moved on behalf of the parties. As per the record, the information was submitted to the police station by Surendra Kumar Sharma.

4. As per the affidavit filed by Jeevanti Devi, the wife of the informant that during the pendency of the case, informant Surendra Kumar Sharma passed away. Jivanti Devi is present before the Court physically. She clearly stated that her husband passed away. She does not want to pursue the matter. She is the legally wedded wife of the informant. Compromise has taken place between the parties.

5. In the present matter, the Trial Court convicted the revisionist u/s 411 IPC and sentenced him to two years' rigorous imprisonment along with fine, while he had been

acquitted u/s 380 and 457 IPC. In appeal, the Appellate Court has also confirmed order passed by the Trial Court.

6. As per sub-section 6 of Section 320 of Cr.P.C, a High Court or Court of Session acting in the exercise of its powers of revision under section 401 may allow any person to compound any offence which such person is competent to compound under this section. As per the table, owner of the property has the power to compounding the case, which falls u/s 411 IPC.

7. In these circumstances compounding application is allowed. The compromise between the parties is accepted. The impugned judgments and order passed against the revisionist are set aside. The revisionist is acquitted of the charges levelled against him in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

8. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

R.C. Khulbe, J.) 21.02.2022 R.Bisht