Disposed

Om Prakash Singh v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC10 Jan 2020Cr.Rev./1651/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a criminal revision petition pending after a compromise between the parties. Upholding the conviction, the Court modified the sentence to the period already undergone and directed the release of court-deposited compensation.

What did the court decide?

Conviction upheld; sentence modified to period already undergone; amount of Rs. 4 Lacs deposited released to complainant.

Om Prakash Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand And… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Rev. No. 1651 of 2016

¶3

with I.A. No. 7478 of 2018 with I.A. No. 6019 of 2019

¶4

Om Prakash Singh, son of Sri Ramayan Singh, resident of Ayodha Villa Apartment, Co-oprative Colony, PO-Bartand, PS-Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad .... ...... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Parvez Ahmed Khan, son of Late Abdul Samad Khan, resident of MADA Colony, Q. No.AA/12, Hirapur, PO&PS-Dhanbad, DistrictDhanbad .... ...... Opp. Parties

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

¶9

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. S.K. Barnwal, APP For the Complainant : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Adv. ---

¶10

08/ 10.01.2020 The petitioner has challenged the judgment of conviction dated 29.03.2016 passed in C.P. Case No.1149 of 2011 by which he has been convicted and sentenced to S.I for six months, as also the judgment dated 29.09.2016 passed in Cr. Appeal No.78 of 2016. By way of compensation, he has been directed to pay Rs.14 Lacs to the complainant. His appeal against the judgment dated 29.03.2016 vide, Cr. Appeal No.78 of 2016 has been dismissed by judgment dated 29.09.2016.

¶11

In the present proceeding, by an order dated 11.07.2018, he has been granted bail by this Court.

¶12

Now, a joint compromise petition vide, I.A. No.6019 of 2019 has been filed. In this application, the petitioner has stated as under:

¶13

“That due to intervention of the well wisher and friends, the entire confusions and misunderstanding giving arise to the lodging of the complaint case has been sorted out between the petitioner and the complainant/opposite party.

¶14

That the entire dispute giving arise to the lodging of

¶15

¶16

the complaint against the petitioner and the complainant/opposite party no.2 have been sorted out amicably by way of mutual understanding and there remains no any grievance or lis between the parties any further.

¶17

That the complainant/opposite party no.2 on his own free will has agreed/decided to settle and compromise the matter with the petitioner and he has no further grievances with the petitioner.

¶18

That the complainant/opposite party no.2 in view of the fact that now there remains no grievance of either of the parties against each other does not want to proceed with the case against the petitioner.”

¶19

This application is supported by the affidavits of the petitioner and the complainant.

¶20

Mr. Lukesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the complainant submits that the complainant has settled the matter with the accused-petitioner on payment of Rs.7,40,000/- which is the cheque amount. Out of the said amount, Rs.4 Lacs was deposited by the petitioner in the court below and a cheque of Rs.3,40,000/- has been handed over by the petitioner to the complainant.

¶21

The learned counsels appearing for the parties submit that now, since the parties have amicably settled their dispute amongst themselves, the judgment in C.P. Case No.1149 of 2011 as affirmed by the appellate court in Cr. Appeal No.78 of 2016, needs to be set-aside.

¶22

Mr. Ranjan Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has remained in custody for about two months.

¶23

In “Manjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.” 2019 SCC Online SC 896, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that compromise between the parties is a relevant fact for quantum of punishment.

¶24

In view of the judgment in “Manjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.” (supra) and keeping in mind compromise between the parties, who have filed a compromise petition, while upholding the judgment of conviction of the petitioner, sentence awarded to him is modified to the period already undergone by him.

¶25

¶26

Cr. Rev. No.1651 of 2016 stands disposed of, in the above terms. The amount of Rs. 4 Lacs deposited by the petitioner shall be released in favour of the complainant.

¶27

Accordingly, I.A. No. 7478 of 2018 and I.A. No. 6019 of 2019 stand disposed of.

¶28

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

¶29

R.K.

Om Prakash Singh v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash Singh v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Awadhesh Prasad Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Vishal Kumar And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Manoj Kumar Bhagat Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Shambhu Nath Singh Vs Guria Singh

Anjana Kumari And Anr. Vs Sanjay Suman

Raju Oraon Vs Ghurni Orain And Anr.