Darshan Singh & Others vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

These are two criminal revisions being Criminal Revision Nos. 166 & 167 of 2015, which are listed for consideration of the compounding application.

Since there is a slight distinction in relation to the order, which has sought to be compounded, the brief facts in relation to the relief claimed in the two revisions are necessarily required to be dealt with separately.

Criminal Revision No. 166 of 2015 'Darshan Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand' arises out of a judgment dated 10.12.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ram Nagar, District Nainital in Criminal Case No. 132 of 2012 'State vs. Darshan Singh & Others' in which the revisionist has been convicted for commission of an offence under Sections 323 and 325 of IPC, which was later on affirmed by the Appellate Court's judgment dated 07.05.2015 as rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 235 of 2013 'Darshan Singh & Others vs. State', whereby, for an offence committed under Section 323 the revisionist has been convicted to undergo a sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- has been imposed and for an offence under Section 325 he has been directed to undergo a one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- has been imposed. In this revision the parties to the proceedings, who are present in person have been duly identified by their counsels, they have filed a joint application signed by all the parties including their counsels, who have endorsed the application being Compounding Application No. 2186/2019 by invoking the provisions contained under Section 320 of Cr.P.C.

In the connected revision being Criminal Revision No.167 of 2015 'Bittu vs. State of Uttarakhand', which also arises out of the same offence a challenge has been put to the judgment of conviction dated 10.12.2013 rendered by the Judicial Magistrate, Ram Nagar in Criminal Case No. 132 of 2012 'State vs. Darshan Singh & Others' convicting the revisionist of Revision No. 167 of 2015, for the offences under Sections 323 and 325 of IPC, which later on stood affirmed by the Appellate Court's judgment dated 07.05.2015, as rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 235 of 2013 'Darshan Singh & Others vs. State'. This revision too is presented today on the compounding application being Compounding Application No. 2187/2019, which has been duly signed by all the parties, who are present in person before this Court as well as their counsels, whereby, they have submitted that they have settled their dispute outside the Court and, hence, the conviction order may be set aside and the offence for which the revisionists have been convicted, the same may be quashed.

As far as the offence under Section 325 is concerned, it is compoundable with the leave of the Court. Thus, this Court after considering the application and its contents, is exercising its powers to compound the offence under Section 325.

This Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after recording the statements of the parties to the respective revisions, who had submitted that they have settled their scores outside the Court and the complainant, has got no grievance left to be redressed, as against the revisionists and, consequently, he does not want to pursue the matter further to ensure the conviction of the revisionists as levied by the impugned order under challenge in the revision.

Considering the aforesaid backdrop and also considering the fact that the nature of offence, which has been said to be proved against the revisionists being of personal nature and it is not an offence as against the public at large, thus, in view of the pronouncement as rendered in the judgment of 'Pan Singh Rana vs. State of Uttarakhand & Another' reported in 2018 (2) U.D., 680, the compounding applications are allowed. The revisions and the offence against which it has been preferred would stand compounded and, consequently, as a result of composition the order of conviction as rendered by the Trial Court and Appellate Court in respective Criminal Revision would too stand quashed.

Since the revisionists are already on bail, they need not to surrender, the sureties, which have been extended at the time of availing the bail in pursuance to the orders passed by this Court would be discharged by the Magistrate concerned.

In view of the above, both the revisions stand allowed and the impugned order of conviction stands quashed.