Allowed

Nishchay Midha v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC21 Mar 2023Cr.Rev./188/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a joint compromise petition filed by the convicted petitioner and the victim-opposite party. The court set aside the impugned judgment, acquitted the petitioner of the charges, and discharged him from the liability of his bail bond, subject to conditions on deposited funds.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment set aside; petitioner acquitted; discharged from bail bond liability; Rs. 25,000 deposited in Advocates Welfare Fund.

Nishchay Midha Vs the State of Jharkhand — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Criminal Revision No.188 of 2019

¶3

Nishchay Midha ... Petitioner -Versus1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Roshan Lal Bhatia … Opposite Parties

¶4

-Versus---------

¶5

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

¶6

------For the Petitioner : Mr. Amresh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, A.P.P. For the O.P No.2 : Mr. Chandrajit Mukherjee, Adv. --------- Order No.10 Dated 21^st March, 2023

¶7

I.A No.2664 of 2023

¶8

The present Interlocutory Application being I.A No.2664 of 2023 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner and the Opposite Party No.2 by way of Joint Compromise Petition.

¶9

Heard Mr. Amresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Chandrajit Mukherjee, learned counsel for the O.P No.2.

¶10

The present Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner by challenging the judgment dated 21.01.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No.116 of 2018, by which, the said criminal appeal filed by the Informant-O.P No.2 was allowed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, by which, the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 448, 427, 504 of the IPC and Section 506 Part I of the IPC but instead of awarding the sentence of imprisonment. The learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi has passed the order of composite sentence of fine of Rs.50,000/- under all the said counts/heads by way of compensation upon the accused/petitioner in order to give the said compensation to the informant/victim.

¶11

¶12

It was further directed that in case of default of payment of Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation the convict-petitioner shall go imprisonment for a period of six months under all the heads collectively and the said fine of Rs.50,000/- was to be deposited within a period of two months.

¶13

Although, learned Trial Court i.e, Sri. Tarkeshwar Das, Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Ranchi has acquitted the petitioner for the offences under Section 448, 427, 504 and Section 506 Part I of the IPC in connection with Lower Bazar P.S. Case No.194/2010, arising out of G.R No.4757/2010, corresponding to T.R No.911/17.

¶14

Mr. Amresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case has been compromised between both the sides. It is further submitted that there is no dispute between the parties and hence, the petitioner may be acquitted for the charges under Sections 448, 427, 504 and Section 506 Part I of the IPC and this Criminal Revision Application may be allowed.

¶15

Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the State has raised no objection. 6. Mr. Chandrajit Mukherjee, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 has also admitted the factum of compromise between both the sides.

¶16

Perused the records of this case and I.A No. 2664 of 2023 and considered the submissions of both the sides.

¶17

It transpires that case has been compromised between both the sides and there is no grievance between the parties.

¶18

Paragraph Nos.5 to 9 of the I.A No.2664 of 2023 read as under:-

¶19

“Para-5:- That during the pendency of the present case, both the petitioner and the Opposite Party No.2/victim have compromised their disputes amicably and have no hard feelings against each other.

¶20

Para-6:- That the Opposite Party No.2 has no grievances and claims as against the petitioner and does not intend to realize the fine amount so granted by the learned Court below.

¶21

¶22

Para-7:- That the Opposite Party also does not have any objection, if the amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the petitioner before the learned Court below in compliance of order of this Hon’ble Court is ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner.

¶23

Para-8:-. That the Opposite Party and the peitoner have no claims whatsoever from each other on any score.

¶24

Para-9:-. That the Opposite Party No.2 has no objection to the present criminal revision, if is allowed by this Hon’ble Court and does not want to proceed further with the litigation.”

¶25

It appears that the case has been compromised between both the sides.

¶26

Under the circumstances, judgment dated 21.01.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No.116 of 2018 is set-aside in terms of compromise and the petitioner namely, Nishchay Midha is acquitted for the charges under Sections 448, 427, 504 and Section 506 Part I of the IPC and the petitioner is also discharged from the liability of his bail bond.

¶27

So far as the amount of Rs.25,000/- is concerned, the same may be withdrawn from Nazarat Civil Court, Ranchi and which may be deposited before the Advocates’ Association Welfare & Development Fund, Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi, within a period of four weeks from today.

¶28

Thus, I.A No.2664 of 2023 is allowed and accordingly, stands disposed of.

¶29

The present Criminal Revision No.188 of 2019 is hereby, allowed and accordingly, disposed of.

¶30

( Sanjay Prasad, J .)

¶31

Raja/-

Nishchay Midha v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nishchay Midha v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Lal Chandra Mandal Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Sarban Sonkar Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Shahdeo Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pawan Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bishwanath Nayak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sailesh Chatterjee Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.