Vinay Gupta vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

The revisionist-Vinay Gupta was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Against the said judgment dated 07.10.2016, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No. 965 of 2011, a Criminal Appeal (No. 179 of 2016) was filed. The said Appeal has been dismissed vide judgment dated 19.12.2023, passed by learned Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar.

Revisionist-Vinay Gupta, respondent no. 2-Dam Kumar Mandal, respondent no. 3-Smt. Jayanti Mandal, the injured, and, respondent no. 4-Smt. Shriti Mandal, the wife of the revisionist, are present in-person.

Mr. Mani Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned Brief Holder for the State and Mr. Kishore Rai, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 4.

Revisionist is identified by Mr. Mani Kumar, Advocate.

The respondents are identified by Mr. Kishore Rai, Advocate.

Respondent no. 2-Dam Kumar Mandal, is the father-in-law of the revisionist and respondent no. 3 is a family member of respondent no. 2.

Both, the revisionist and the respondents submitted that there were private disputes between them and the said disputes have been resolved by them and after resolving the disputes, they have filed a Compounding Application (IA No. 2 of 2024) along with affidavits with their free will and without any pressure.

Revisionist and respondent no. 4 further submitted that they are living together.

Learned counsel for the State submitted that there were private disputes between the parties and they have resolved their disputes, therefore, the State has no objection to decide the present matter on the basis of the compromise.

Both the parties have requested to decide the present matter on the basis of the compromise.

The present Criminal Revision deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed by holding that since the offence has been compounded, the revisionist is entitled to acquittal.

Consequently, the impugned judgment dated 19.12.2023, passed by learned Appellate Court and the impugned judgment dated 07.10.2016, passed by learned Trial Court are set aside and the revisionist is ordered to be acquitted of the charge levelled against him.