Allowed

Raju @ Chetan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC12 Dec 2015CRA/1002/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a National Lok Adalat, the Chhattisgarh High Court allowed a joint compromise petition filed by the appellant and complainants. The Court permitted compromise in the compoundable offence of IPC 324/34 and acquitted the appellant under Section 320(8) CrPC.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed; the appellant was acquitted of the offences under Section 323/34 of IPC.

Raju @ Chetan Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2015)

¶1

VQf7. ^.f-'. j l^/£j/

¶2

¶3

CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT. BILASPUR

¶4

NATIONAL LOK ADALAT

¶5

Judge - LokAdalat: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chandra Bhushan Bajpai Member - Lok Adalat: Shri Vinay Harit, Sr. Advocate

¶6

Criminal Appeal No.1002 of 2011

¶7

APPELLANT : Raju @ Chetan, S/o. Harishchandra @ Asha Ram Sahu, aged about 25 years, Occupation : labour, R/o. Naya Talab, near Pathak Kirana Store, Gudiyari, Police Station Gudiyari, Raipur (CG)

¶8

Versus

¶9

RESPONDENT State ofChhattisgarh, Through Police Station Gudiyari, Distt. Raipur (CG)

¶10

Appellant Raju Chetan alQng with his counsel Shri Sameer Oraon, Advocate., ;

¶11

Shri SC Khakhariya,. Dy. Advocate General for the State.

¶12

Complainants Vivek Lahari ai-tcl;,Nitesh Lahari are present in person along with their counsel Shri,R;isSi-'Sa'l"u.]i,»W%ocate.

¶13

fWfiiWlRD

¶14

(Pas5eB^»njK| ecember,2015)

¶15

Heard rfn IA No.01 ,!apt3|ioatJon^{underSection320oftheCodeof} Crimina] Procedure, 19'Z^(foEisM®rfcjffle;Code').

¶16

. Complainants/injaieelSBigllnSiSivek Lahari (PW-1) and Nitesh Lahari (PW-7) and appellant Raju @ Chetan are present along with their counsel and they have filed a joint compromise petition today and prayed that as the matter is compoundable in terms of compromise under Section 320(1) of the Code, the prayer and the compromise petition may be allowed and the appellant may be acquitted as per provisions of Section 320(8) of the Code.

¶17

Perused the compromise petition filed today and IA No.01/15, which is already pending in the record.

¶18

' The appellant has been convicted under Section 324/34 (two count.s) of the IPC in connection with causing simple injury to Vivek Lahari (PW-1) and Nitesh Lahari (PW-7) and the trial Court vide judgment dated 23.11.2011 convicted him accordingly in Sessions Case No.74/09.

¶19

^^i!s' ^•y ^ V" %-,^.v'^.s-y

¶20

Conviction under Section 323/34 for two counts is compoundable with leave of this Court as per provisions of Section 320(5) of the Code. Prayer made in this behalf is voluntary, hence, acceptable.

¶21

Consequently, IA No.01/15 is allowed. Leave to compromise is . hereby granted

¶22

Also compromise petition signed and submitted today by both the injured victims/complainants and by the appellant voluntarily is hereby allowed. Offence under Section 323/34 (two counts) ofthe IPC againstthe appellant is hereby compromised as per the prayer made in the compromise petition. As a result, the appellant is acquitted of the offence under Section 323/34 (twocounts) as per the provisions of Section 320(8) of the Code. "The appeal is allowed; The appellant is acquitted.

¶23

Sd//-
C.B. BAJPAI
Judge

¶24

Sd/-, (Vinay Harit) Member - Lok Adalat High Court of Chhattisgarh Bilaspur

¶25

Bini

Raju @ Chetan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju @ Chetan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narendra Kumar Chandrakar Vs Kuluram Jain and Ors.

Gyan Ganga Education Acadamy and Ors. Vs Smt. Suman Dheer and Anr.

Rajesh and Ors. Vs Smt. Punabai and Ors.

Milind B. Kelkar and Others Vs M. Murthy

Kashi Puri Kundan Goswami Vs Bhatiya Jeewan Bima Nigam

Smt. Santoshi Alias Santra Vs C.G. Power Distri. Co. Ltd. and Ors.