BUNTY @ DEEPAK THAKUR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed under Sec. 397 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dtd. 29/8/2018 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur Bushahr in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2017 whereby he partly affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence dtd. 19/1/2017/7/2/2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Anni, District Kullu in Criminal Case No.98-2 of 2011 whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5000.00 and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month for committing offence punishable under Sec. 354 IPC.

(2.) When the case was taken up today, the petitioner and the complainant are present in person and are identified as such by their respective counsel(s). The complainant vide separately recorded statement stated that she has entered into a compromise with the intervention of local people and relatives of both sides with the petitioner out of free will and without any pressure or coercion from any side and she does not want to pursue the present case any further against the petitioner as the matter has been compromised between the parties. This statement of the complainant is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, who stated that the matter has been compromised between the parties.

(3.) However, the moot question now is whether a case of the instant kind can be compromised, more particularly, when the offence(s) admittedly is/are not compoundable.