Karan Singh vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lahaul- Spiti at Kullu, pronounced an order of conviction upon the revisionist herein qua commission of an offence punishable under Section 325 IPC. In an appeal preferred therefrom by the accused before the ''learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kullu, sequelled the latter affirming the pronouncement recorded upon the accused by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lahaul-spiti. The accused/convict standing aggrieved by the concurrently recorded renditions of both the Courts below proceeded to assail them by preferring a revision herebefore.

During the pendency of the revision before this Court the learned counsel for the accused/convict revisionist herein, has instituted an application under Section 320 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. whereby he seeks permission of this Court for compounding the offence commited by him under Section 325 IPC. The application aforesaid also holds the signatures of complainant.

The offence qua which a concurrent order of conviction stood pronounced upon the accused/convict is compoundable yet the accused/convict and the complainant while endeavouring to seek composition of the offence whereupon an order of conviction stood concurrently pronounced upon the accused/convict, are enjoined to obtain the permission of this Court.

Be that as it may, this Court would proceed to accord the apposite permission to them only when satiation stands begotten qua the relevant principles encapsulated in the pronouncement of the Hon''ble Apex Court reported in Ramji Lal and another v. State of Haryana, 1983(1). SCC 368, Mohd. Raft v. State of U.P., 1998(2) R.C.R.(Criminal 455, M.D. Balan Mian and another v. State of Bihar and another 2001 AIR (SCW) 5190, Khursheed and another v. State of U.P in Appeal (Crl.) No. 1302 of 2007, Dasan v. State of Kerala and another 2014(2) EcrC 384. The afore stated pronouncements of the Hon''ble Apex Court empower Courts of law to proceed to permit the accused/convict and the informant/complainant to enter into a compromise also empower the Court concerned to grant the apposite permission to them for compounding the offence(s) only on vivid display occurring qua its facilitating restoration of harmony in society besides its promoting goodwill and amity amongst them.

Since both the accused/convict and the complainant/informant in their respective statements recorded on oath reduced into writing and respectively signatured by them echo therein qua their apposite conjoint endeavour intending to promote goodwill and peace amongst them necessarily hence the aforesaid principle encapsulated in the afore referred judgments of the Hon''ble Apex Court for thereupon this Court holding a facilitation to permit them to compound the offence whereupon the accused stood concurrently convicted by both the Courts below stands visibly satiated.

Consequently, this Court accepts their joint proposal to compound the offence committed by the accused/convict. In sequel thereto the revision petition is allowed. The conviction and sentence concurrently imposed upon the accused/convict by both the Courts below is set aside. The accused/convict is acquitted. Bail bonds are cancelled.