BALDEV RAJ 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 22.10.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge -I, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P in Criminal Appeal No. 32 -D/03, affirming the judgment dated 15.10.2003, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Baijnath in criminal Case No. 49 -II -2002, whereby the present petitioner is convicted under Sections 326 and 323 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment imprisonment for two years under section 326 IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 500/ - and to undergo simple imprisonment for three months under section 323 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.100/ -. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

(2.) On 20.12.2007, this Court while admitting the instant Criminal Revision petition for hearing, suspended the sentence imposed by the Court 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 23.4.2016, when the matter came up for final hearing before this Court, petitioner -accused moved an application under Section 320 Cr.P.C read with Section 482 Cr.P.C placing therewith a compromise entered between the petitioner - accused as well as complainant.

(3.) Careful reading of the averments contained in the application suggest that during the pendency of the present criminal revision petition, parties have entered into compromise, which has been placed on record alongwith the application, as referred hereinabove. Learned counsel representing the petitioner, prayed that since the matter has been compromised between the parties, this Court an exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C can order for compounding the offence. However, Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, representing the respondent -State opposed the aforesaid prayer having been made on behalf of the petitioner -accused. He stated that petitioner - accused stands convicted by the learned trial Court and his conviction has been further upheld by the learned first appellate Court and as such, no public interest would be served, if the parties are allowed to compromise the matter at hand at this stage. Both the parties are present in person in the Court.