RAJESH KUMAR @ RAJU Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the judgment dated 2.6.2008, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, HP, in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2007, affirming the judgment dated 6.3.2007, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Barsar in criminal Complaint No. 59 -I -2006/ RBT No.46 -II -2006, whereby the present petitioner is convicted under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/ -, which was lateron modified to three months by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, in appeal.

(2.) On 4.7.2008, this Court while admitting the instant Criminal Revision petition for hearing, suspended the sentence imposed by the Courts below against the petitioner subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ - with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However on 6.5.2016, when the matter came up for final hearing before this Court, petitioner -accused moved an application under Section 321 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C placing therewith a compromise entered between the petitioner -accused as well as complainant.

(3.) After careful reading of the averments contained in the application, time was granted to the respondent -State to file reply, if any, to the application and parties were directed to remain present in the Court on 31.5.2016. Respondent -State filed reply to the application, wherein most of the averments have been denied for want of knowledge. In para -6 of the reply, it is submitted that the allegations leveled against the petitioner -accused stands proved before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barsar and his conviction has been further upheld by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur and, as such, no public interest would be served, if the parties are allowed to compromise the matter at hand. Both the parties are present in person in the Court.