RAM KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present revision petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the judgment dated 23.06.2009/25.06.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Court No.1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur in Criminal Case No.242/2 of 2006, under Sections 279, 337, 338 of IPC and Sections 181 and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short the 'Act') wherein the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 279 of IPC and in case of default to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month, under Section 337 of IPC, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in case of default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, under Section 338 of IPC the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-and in case of default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, for the commission of offence under Section 181 of the Act he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.200/- and in case of default to undergo simple imprisonment for 7 days and under Section 196 of the Act, the petitioner was to sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.200/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 7 days, as affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan on 17.03.2010 in Criminal Appeal No.29- Cr.A/10 of 2009. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) Today, the petitioner and injured Brij Lal are present in the Court and identified as such by their respective counsel(s). It is jointly stated by learned counsel for the parties that they have amicably settled the matter. In view of subsequent development, it is not necessary to state the facts giving rise to the present revision petition because it is jointly represented by learned counsel for the parties that they have amicably settled the matter.

(3.) From the records of the case, I find that this is not a case wherein the offence for which the petitioner has been charged can 'stricto sensu' be termed to be an offence against the State. Therefore, this is a case where the continuation of criminal case against the petitioner would put him to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not setting aside the impugned judgments of conviction and sentence.