Disposed¶23

Arjun and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC2 Mar 2025CRA/209/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compounding of offence; compromise between convict-appellants and complainant/victim; acquittal on compounding; Section 325/34 IPC; Section 320(2) and 320(5) Cr.P.C.; Section 359 and 359(5) BNSS 2023; Section 437-A CrPC bail bond; refund of fine; CRA No. 209 of 2007; High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal; decided 03/03/2025; arising from Session Case No.262/2006, Special Judge NDPS Act, Jagdalpur, District Bastar; appellants Arjun, Sahadev, Vijay; complainant Bhaluram Mandavi; 2025.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to compound the offence under Sections 325/34 IPC on the basis of compromise; appellants acquitted; appeal disposed of in terms of the compromise applications; fine, if deposited, to be refunded to the appellants; bail bonds to remain in force for six months under Section 437-A CrPC.

Arjun and Others Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether permission should be granted to compound the offence under Section 325/34 IPC, for which the appellants were convicted, on the basis of the compromise/settlement between the appellants and complainant Bhaluram Mandavi, and whether the appellants should be acquitted accordingly. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

The offence under Section 325/34 IPC is a compoundable offence; on the voluntary affidavit/compromise of complainant Bhaluram Mandavi, permission is granted to compound the offence and the appellants are acquitted of the offences under Sections 325/34 IPC; the compromise applications are allowed.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

The appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise applications; any amount of fine deposited by the appellants shall be refunded to them.

¶23

Key takeaways

The appellants, who are on bail, are not required to surrender again; their bail bond(s) shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of Section 437-A CrPC.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRA No. 209 of 2007 (High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.; order dated 03/03/2025): Criminal appeal against the judgment dated 21.02.2007 of the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act, Bastar place Jagdalpur, in Session Case No.262/2006, whereby the appellants Arjun, Sahadev and Vijay were convicted for offence punishable under Section 325/34 of IPC and sentenced to RI for 6 months and fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation. Appellant no.2 Sahadev and complainant Bhaluram Mandavi jointly filed IA No.1/2025 for compounding under S.320(2) Cr.P.C. r/w S.359 of BNSS 2023 and IA No.2/2025 for leave to compound under S.320(5) Cr.P.C. r/w S.359(5) of BNSS 2023, supported by affidavits, stating that a settlement had been reached and seeking acquittal of the appellants. Holding that the said offence is a compoundable offence and that the complainant had voluntarily given his affidavit for compromise, the Court granted permission to compound the offence u/s Sections 325/34 IPC, acquitted the appellants, allowed the compromise applications, disposed of the appeal in terms thereof, directed refund of any fine deposited, and directed that the bail bond(s) of the appellants (who are on bail and need not surrender) remain in force for six months in view of Section 437-A CrPC.

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.03.05 10:34:51 +0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:10427

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRA No. 209 of 2007

¶7

Arjun, S/o Lamdhar, aged about 45 years, R/o Village Biringpal, P.S. Parpa, District Bastar (C.G.)

¶8

Sahadev, S/o Lamdhar, aged about 32 years, R/o Village Biringpal, P.S. Parpa, District Bastar (C.G.)

¶9

Vijay, S/o Arjun, aged about 21 years, R/o Village Biringpal, P.S. Parpa, District Bastar (C.G.)

¶10

... Appellants

¶11

versus

¶12

State of Chhattisgarh, through District Magistrate Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.)

¶13

	... Respondent
For Appellants	: Mr. Akash Pandey, Advocate
For Respondent/State	: Mr. HAPS Bhatia, Panel Lawyer
For Complainant	: Mr. Sahdev Yadav, Advocate

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶15

Order On Board

¶16

03/03/2025

¶17

This appeal arises out of impugned judgment dated 21.02.2007 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Act, Bastar place Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh, in Session Case No.262/2006 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the Appellants for offence punishable under Section 325/34 of IPC and sentenced them RI for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation.

¶18

Appellant no.2 Sahadev and complainant of the case Bhaluram Mandavi are present before this Court through their respective Counsels and submit that at this stage they have filed IA No. 1/2025 for compounding U/s 320(2) Cr.P.C. r/w Section 359 of BNSS 2023 supported with affidavit of Appellant Sahdev, IA No.2/2025 for leave of

¶19

¶20

the Hon’ble Court for compounding U/s 320(5) Cr.P.C. r/w Section 359(5) of BNSS 2023 supported with affidavit of Appellant Sahdev and earlier filed affidavit of complainant Bhaluram Mandavi dated 03.02.2025 and seeking permission to compound the offence and further to dispose of the appeal by acquitting the appellants.

¶21

Heard complainant/victim Bhaluram Mandavi on I.A.No.01/2025 and IA No.02/2025 which are duly supported by the affidavits of appellant Sahadev, has stated that a settlement has been reached between him and the appellants, hence the appellants may be acquitted.

¶22

The incident is of the year 2006. The appellants have been convicted by the Trial Court for offence punishable under Section 325/34 of the IPC, the said offence is a compoundable offence. Complainant Bhaluram Mandavi S/o Dashru Ram has voluntarily given affidavit for compromise wherein he has stated that he does not want to further prosecute the appellants and wants to acquit them on the basis of compromise arrived between them. Therefore, permission is granted to compound the offence u/s Sections 325/34 IPC by way of these compromise applications. The Appellants are acquitted of the offences under Sections 325/34 of IPC. Accordingly, the applications for compromise are allowed.

¶23

In the result, the appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise applications. If any amount of fine deposited by the appellants, shall be refunded to them.

¶24

The appellants are on bail. They are not required to again surrender in this case. However, their bail bond(s) shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437-A of CrPC.

¶25

Let a certified copy of this judgment along-with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for information and necessary action, if any.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

( Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal ) Judge

¶28

Shubham

Arjun and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bal Govind Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt Ramkali Vs Vijay Kumar

Paramjeet Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Prem Kumar @ Premlal Kolta And Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Murit Ram Dhuri Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay Bachad Vs State of Chhattisgarh