LAWS(HPH)-2017-10-55

HEERA LAL Vs. SUBHASH CHAND & OTHERS

Decided On October 17, 2017
HEERA LAL Appellant
V/S
Subhash Chand And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A bench of Lok Adalat, on, anvil of statements recorded before it, by the legal representatives of deceased complainant and, on, anvil of joint statement(s) of the accused, in statement(s) whereof each echoed their volitional readiness to compound the offences borne in FIR No.28/2011 of 16.04.2011 lodged with police station, Gagret, hence proceeded to dismiss as withdrawn case No.19-11-12/14-11, titled as State of H.P. Vs. Subhash Chand and others. One Heera Lal, legal representative of injured, one, Dhan Devi upon whose person injuries were inflicted by the accused, assailed the order pronounced by the Bench of the Lok Adalat, by his, carrying a Criminal Revision therefrom, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (II), Una. His trite espousal for invalidating the pronouncement made by the Bench of Lok Adalat, was, grooved in the factum of the latter holding no jurisdictional competence, to, make an order for compounding the relevant offences, given some amongst them being non-compoundable. Secondarily, he contended before the learned Revisional Court, that, with Dhan Devi, upon whose person, injuries were inflicted, in the relevant occurrence, by the accused, no longer alive at the stage when the impugned order was pronounced by the bench of the Lok Adalat, hence, in consonance with the mandate enshrined in Section 320 (4) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.), provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:-

(2.) Before dwelling upon the efficacy of the aforesaid espousal(s), it is incumbent upon this Court, to also test the merit, of, the submission(s) addressed before this Court, by Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 8, submission(s) whereof, impinge upon the maintainability herebefore of the instant petition, cast under the provisions of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel in making vehement contentions before this Court, that with Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C., creating an explicit statutory bar against the availment(s) of revisional jurisdiction, for assailing, of, interlocutory order(s), thereupon, availment of the provisions of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., by the aggrieved, also suffering an alike express ouster, has laid dependence upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in a case titled as Amar Nath & others versus State of Haryana & others, 1977 CrLJ 1891, relevant paragraph No.3 whereof stands extracted hereinafter:-

(3.) Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel also relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in a case titled as Dharampal and others versus Smt. Ramshri and others, 1993 CrLJ 1049, relevant paragraph No.4 whereof stands extracted hereinafter:-