LAWS(HPH)-2019-5-80

BABLI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Decided On May 07, 2019
BABLI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M By way of present revision petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the judgment dtd. 19/9/2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala, in Criminal Appeal No.5-B/X/2004, whereby he affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes 1st Class, Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P., on 20/2/2004, in Criminal Case No. 336-II/99, wherein the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs.500.00 for the commission of the offence punishable under Sec. 279 IPC and in default of payment of fine he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 days, the petitioner was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and fine of Rs.500.00 for the commission of the offence punishable under Sec. 337 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days and under Sec. 338 of IPC the petitioner was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500.00 and in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) Today, the petitioner and complainant/victim Shivani Gupta 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 as per compromise deed placed on the file. 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.