ORDER :

Heard Mr. Sudhanshu Shekhar Choudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Aman Shekhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2.

3. Heard Ms. Niki Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party – State.

4. This criminal revision petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 10.09.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No.63/2011 by learned Addl. Sessions Judge - I, Rajmahal whereby the learned court below has been pleased to dismiss the Criminal Appeal No.63 of 2011 against the judgment & Order of sentence dated 05.08.2011 passed by learned J.M. 1st Class, Rajmahal in P.C.R. Case No.720/2007 by which the petitioner was held guilty u/s 498A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code for each offence and sentenced to undergo S.I. of one and half year and fine of 1000 for each offence and in default of fine one month S.I. for each offence further and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner and opposite party no.2 have jointly submitted that they have filed a joint compromise petition being I.A. No.3383 of 2021 as they have settled their dispute outside the Court and both the parties are not willing to proceed further against each other. Learned counsels have also submitted that it has been specifically stated in para – 3 of the joint compromise petition that the matter has been compromised between both the sides and harmonious relationship have been restored and both are living together peacefully. Accordingly, they jointly submit that the present petition be disposed of considering the aforesaid interlocutory application.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, has submitted that she has no objection if the sentence of the petitioner is modified and limited to the period already undergone by the petitioner in custody. She has also submitted that the petitioner has been convicted under Section 498A and Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code and there is no prescribed minimum sentence. The learned counsel has also submitted that so far as the conviction is concerned, there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below and there being no illegality or perversity, the conviction may not be set-aside.

7. Upon this, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that he would be satisfied if only sentence is limited to the period already undergone by the petitioner. He has also submitted that so far as the fine amount is concerned, the same has already been deposited.

8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also the joint compromise petition being I.A. No.3383 of 2021 filed in this case, this Court finds that the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 have clearly stated that their harmonious relationship has been restored and in such circumstances, this Court finds that ends of justice would be served if the sentence of the petitioner is confined to the period already undergone by the petitioner in custody.

9. From the records of this case, this Court finds that the petitioner had surrendered before the learned court below on 04.10.2012 and was directed to be released on bail vide order dated 01.11.2012.

10. Upon perusal of the impugned judgments, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity and in view of the compromise entered into between the petitioner and the opposite party no.2, there is no further requirement of entering into the merits of the case. The judgment of conviction against the petitioner is sustained, but so far as the sentence is concerned, the same is limited to the period of custody already undergone by the petitioner.

11. Accordingly, the present criminal revision application along with I.A. No.3383 of 2021 stand disposed of.

12. The petitioner is discharged for the liability of the bail bond.

13. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

14. Let t