High CourtsSingle Bench(2023) 08 UK CK 0072

Madan Mohan Mamgai And Two Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 10 August 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Kumar Verma, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 529 Of 2023, Compounding Application No. 01 Of 2023, Delay Condonation Application No. 02 Of 2023

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

14 paragraphs · 332 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

Present Criminal Revision has been filed challenging the order dated 29.09.2021, passed by learned IVth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 348 of 2019, “State vs. Madan Mohan and two Others”, by which, learned Magistrate has directed to frame the charges against the revisionists-accused persons under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2.

Proposed Revision has been filed along with an Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 427 days’ in preferring the Revision.

3.

Heard Mr. Bharat Chaudhary, learned counsel for revisionists, Mr. V.S. Rathore, learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Naveen Singh Bisht, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

4.

All the three revisionists and respondent no. 2 are present before the Court through video conferencing.

5.

Delay Condonation Application has not been opposed by the respondents.

6.

The Delay Condonation Application (IA No.02 of 2023) is allowed. The delay is condoned.

7.

Admit.

8.

Both, revisionists and respondent no. 2 submit that there were matrimonial disputes between them and after resolving their disputes, they have filed a Compounding Application along with affidavits with their free will and without any pressure.

9.

Respondent no. 2 has further submitted that she does not want to pursue the present matter.

10.

Learned counsel for the revisionists has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, passed in “Bitan Sengupta and Another vs. State of West Bengal and Another”, (2018) 18 SCC 366.

11.

The Compounding Application has not been opposed by the State.

12.

Both the parties have requested to decide the present Criminal Revision on the basis of the compromise.

13.

The present Revision (No. 529 of 2023) deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed by holding that the matter has been compounded by compromise between the parties. The revisionists are ordered to be acquitted of the charges levelled against them.