HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application no. 248/2008 IN Crl. Appeal no. 619/2001 (Old no. 2069/1989) Kundan Singh S/o Kham Singh. ----Appellant Versus State. ---- Respondents Sri Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the appellant. Sri L.K. Tewari, learned counsel for the complainant, Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State. Dated: 29th April 2008 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. This appeal preferred u/s 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) is directed against the judgment and order dated 4th October 1989 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal in Sessions Trial No. 23 of 1988 State vs. Kundan Singh, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused/ appellant Kundan Singh for the offence punishable u/s 324 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment and a fine to the tune of Rs. 250/-, in default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 months u/s 324 I.P.C was awarded. It is directed that out of the amount of the fine so realized, a sum of Rs. 100/- shall be paid to Jas Ram Badoni, by was of compensation. 2. Sri Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the accused/ appellant, Sri L.K. Tewari, learned counsel for the Smt. Prabha Devi W/o Jas Ram Badoni (injured) and Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State are present. 3. Both, Smt. Prabha Devi W/o late Sri Jasram Badoni, resident of village Jaul, Patti Bamund, Police Station Chamba, District Tehri Garhwal, who is identified by Sri L.K. Tewari, Advocate and the accused/appellant Kundan Singh who is identified by Sri Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate, have jointly moved application no. 248/2008 u/s 320 (2) Cr.P.C. seeking permission of the Court to file compromise arrived at in between the accused/appellant Kundan Singh and Smt. Prabha Devi W/o of the injured Jas Ram Badoni. In the accompanying affidavits filed by the accused Kundan Singh and one filed by Smt. Prabha Devi, they have stated that the parties have entered into a compromise and they have settled their dispute outside the Court and now they are living peacefully in their respective villages. 4. Sri Lokendra Dobhal, Adv. and Sri L.K. Tewari, Adv., both have made statement, at bar, that the parties have entered into a compromise outside the Court, with their free will and without any pressure. Sri L.K. Tewari, Adv. has further submitted that Smt. Prabha Devi is the only legal representative of Sri Jas Ram Badoni (injured) and Sri Jas Ram Badoni has died. He has further submitted that about a period of 20 years’ has been passed and the parties are living peacefully and their relations are cordial. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 6. Learned counsel for the accused/appellant Sri Lokendra Dobhal has submitted that the legal representatives are entitled for the compromise. In support of his arguments he cited judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court reported in (2006) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Cri), page 120 Pritam Singh vs. State of Haryana and others and has relied in paras-2,3 & 4 of this judgment, which are quoted as under:- “2. The appellant stands convicted under Section 325 I.P.C. and sentenced to two years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000 by the impugned order of the High Court. During the pendency of the present appeal, the complainant (Gurnam Singh) is reported to be dead. One of the sons (Janak Raj) of the deceased complainant is present in this Court. The parties state that in order to restore good relationship between them they have compromised the matter. They request this Court that the offence be permitted to be compounded. 3. On the joint request made, we find no ground to reject their prayer. Prayer for compounding the offence is allowed. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 325 I.P.C. The appellant be set at liberty if not required in any other case. 4. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.” 7. Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State has submitted that he has no objection, if the parties have entered into a compromise and have sought permission of the Court in this regard to compound the matter. 8. As per Sub Section 4(b) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. the legal representative is entitled for filing compromise, on behalf of the dead person, therefore Smt. Prabha Devi W/o late Jas Ram Badoni (who was injured in the case in hand), is entitled to file compromise. 9. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the principle laid down in the cited judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court, this Court is of the view that permission for compromise is essential and necessary. Accordingly, the application no. 248/2008 seeking permission to file compromise arrived at between the parties is allowed. 10. The compromise is accepted. 11. Accordingly, the conviction of the accused/appellant Kundan Singh for the offence punishable u/s 324 I.P.C. and the sentence awarded aforesaid passed on 4th October, 1989 by the learned Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, both are set-aside. The accused/appellant Kundan Singh is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 324 I.P.C. The accused is on bail, he needs not to surrender. His sureties are discharged. 12. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. 13. Let the record of the court below be sent back to the court concerned. (Dharam Veer, J.) NCM: