PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused -revisionists were convicted under Section 392 IPC and were sentenced appropriately, vide judgment and order dated 29.09.2009 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal in criminal case no. 1053/2002. Aggrieved against the conviction and sentence, the convicts preferred a criminal appeal No. 21/2009, which was dismissed, vide judgment and order dated 23.02.2011 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Tehri Garhwal.

(2.) STILL aggrieved against the same, present criminal revision is filed before this Court.

(3.) THE offence under Section 392 IPC is non -compoundable offence within the scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C. The question is - whether the victim/complainant should be permitted to compound such offence against the convicts or not? The permission can be granted to the victim to compound such offence in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B. S. Joshi : (2003) 4 SCC 675, Dimpey Gujral vs. Union Territory through Administrator U.T. Chandigarh and others : 2013 (123) AIC 119, Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, : (2008) 9 SCC 667 and Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160.