Aadesh Kumar Jain and Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Surendra Singh, J.—Affidavit has been filed today which may be placed on record.

The challenge in this revision is the impugned judgment and order dated 24.8.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Ghaziabad in Criminal Appeal No.83 of 2005 (Aadesh Kumar Jain Vs. State) under Sections 323, 324, 504 IPC, P.S. Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad to the extent that of upholding the conviction under Sections 323/34 and 324/34 IPC recorded by the Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I. Ghaziabad vide judgment and order dated 6.7.2005 in Criminal Case No. 6027 of 2004 (State Vs. Aadesh and others).

I have heard learned counsel for the revisionists as well as learned A.G.A. and Sri L.K. Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and also perused the material placed on record.

The marriage of opposite party no. 2 was solemnised with Smt. Neelam Jain, daughter of Virendra Kumar Jain (sister of revisionist no. 3) on 1.2.1998 and out of their wedlock one son, namely, Sparsh Jain was born. However, due to some differences between Vikas Jain, opposite party no. 2 and Smt. Neelam Jain, matrimonial dispute arisen and cases were filed in different courts by the respective parties. The present criminal revision, which has been filed by the revisionists arising out of case crime no. 401 of 1999, under Sections 323, 324, 504 IPC of police station Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad, is also the outcome of the matrimonial dispute. The revisionists are maternal uncle, the Mausa and the brother of Smt. Neelam Jain respectively. The revisionists and the opposite party no. 2 have settled their dispute amicably and have entered into compromise which has been reduced in writing and has been signed by the present revisionists and some other family members and complainant/opposite party no. 2 and his family members. The memo of compromise was written/signed on 23.10.2011. The same was filed along with the affidavit filed in support of the joint compromise application, which is already on the record.

The husband and wife do not want to prosecute the case any further as they have mutually settled the dispute. Moreover, the matter is purely personal and matrimonial in nature and the dispute in fact arisen between husband and wife on some misunderstanding which has been now settled between the parties in terms of the agreement / settlement.

From the record it is evident that the incident in question took place on 7.7.1999. The complainant has already been impleaded as respondent and is represented through his counsel. Both the parties have filed an affidavit stating that the disputes between the parties have been settled with the intervention of respectable persons of the society. They have also expressed their willingness to compound the offence.

Relying upon the decision of Hon''ble the Apex Court in Hirabhai Jhaverbhai Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, it is submitted that in this case the offence u/s 324 IPC was since committed on 7.7.1999 on which date, it was compoundable with the permission of the court, the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 is not applicable to the facts of the case, the offence u/s 324 IPC would be compoundable with the permission of the court.

In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed by both the parties in support of the joint compromise application and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, permission to compound the offence deserves to be granted.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case including the facts mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the joint compromise application and also the fact that the revisionists during this period have not involved/indulged in any criminal activity and the criminal case lodged against the parties are permitted to compound the offence under Sections 323, 324, 504 IPC.

Hence the revision is allowed. Both the judgments impugned in the revision are set aside. The revisionists are acquitted of the offence under Sections 323, 324, 504 IPC in view of the compromise filed by both the parties. It is further provided that in view of sub-Section 8 of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the composition of the offence under Sections 323, 324, 504 IPC, shall have the effect of an acquittal of the revisionists with whom the offence has been compounded.

Let the lower court record be sent back to the court concerned immediately.