The court can set aside a judgment of conviction and order of sentence if the matter has been compromised between the parties and the offenses are compoundable in nature.

I.A. No. 3129 of 2016

This application has been preferred by the petitioner for condonation the delay of 20 days in filing the criminal revision.

2. Considering the reasons assigned in this application, the delay of 20 days which had occurred in filing this criminal revision is condoned and this I.A. is allowed and disposed of.

I.A. No. 6300 of 2016

3. This application has been preferred by the petitioner for exemption to surrender in terms of Rule 159 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules.

4. It appears that the matter has been settled between the parties and to this effect an interlocutory application being I.A. No. 1998 of 2017 has also been filed by way of joint compromise petition. It further appears from I.A. No. 6300 of 2016 that a compromise petition was preferred before the learned trial court to compound the offences punishable u/s 341, 323, 448 and 354, which is compoundable with the permission of the Court.

5. Learned counsel, appearing for opposite party No. 2 has accepted the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. In view of the fact that the matter has been compromised way back in the year 2010 and a joint compromise petition has also been filed, this application is allowed and the petitioner is exempted to surrender in terms of Rule 159 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules before the learned trial Court (Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella-Kharsawan) in connection with G.R. Case No. 719 of 2006 (Chandil P.S. Case No. 141 of 2006).

Criminal Revision No. 240 of 2017

7. This application is directed against the judgment dated 23.12.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge -I, Seraikella in Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2010, whereby and whereunder, the appeal preferred against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 29.06.2010 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella-Kharsawan in Chandil P.S. Case No. 141 of 2006 (G.R. No. 719 of 2006), convicting the petitioner for the offences punishable u/s 341,323,448 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo S.I. for one month, R.I. for six months and R.I. for one year respectively, has been dismissed.

8. The F.I.R. was instituted by the informant Mira Devi to the effect that when she was alone inside her house, the petitioner entered in her house and started removing her Sari and when she raised alarm, the petitioner had assaulted her with a Lathi. It is also alleged that Panchayati was held in which the petitioner had not participated and he threatened her with dire consequences. Thereafter the matter was reported to the police.

9. Based on the aforesaid allegation Chandil P.S. Case No. 141 of 2006 was instituted in which after investigation charge-sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken. After conclusion of trial since the prosecution has been ale to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt, the petitioner was convicted for the offences punishable u/s 341,323,448 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced accordingly. The appeal preferred by the petitioner in Cr. Appeal No. 40 of 2010 was also dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge -I, Seraikella.

10. At the outset it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter has been compromised between the parties. It has also been submitted that an interlocutory application being I.A. No. 6300 of 2016 by way of compromise petition was preferred before the learned trial court to compound the offences punishable u/s 341, 323, 448 and 354, which is compoundable with the permission of the Court and subsequently during pendency of this application, I.A. No. 1998 of 2017 has also been filed by way of joint compromise petition.

11. It appears from I.A. No. 6300 of 2016 and I.A. No. 1998 of 2017 that the matter has been compromised between the parties. However no consideration has been made by either of the courts below even though the offences as alleged are compoundable in nature.

12. Considering the aforesai