ORDER :

Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Amit Kumar Das is present along with learned counsel Mr. Saurav Kumar.

2. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 Mr. D.K. Karmakar is present.

3. Nobody appears on behalf of the State.

4. This Cr. Revision is directed against the judgment dated 16.08.2012 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge in Cr. Appeal No.195 of 2010, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the learned appellate court has upheld the judgment dated 26.08.2010 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in G.R. Case No.2484 of 2008 (T.R. No.175 of 2010), arising out of Kadma P.S. Case No.173 of 2008. The petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. He has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.4,000/- for the offence under Section 406 of IPC and he was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.4,000/- for the offence under Section 420 of IPC and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner and opposite party no. 2 have jointly submitted that certain cheques were also issued in connection with the transaction involved in the present case and accordingly one complaint case No.3310 of 2009 was filed by the opposite party No.2 namely L.N. Tiwary and he submits that in the case under Section 138 of N.I. Act, the case was compromised and while compromising the case, there was also mention about the present case. Learned counsels have also submitted that they are immediate neighbours. They have submitted that the entire allegation in the present case is in the realm of private dispute between the parties and accordingly they have filed a joint compromise petition in the present case being I.A. No.5741 of 2021 on account of settlement out of the Court.

6. With the aforesaid background, it has been prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of joint compromise petition filed in this case, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner be set-aside.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a decision passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 834 and referred to paragraph 13 thereof to submit that in a case where the offences are pre-dominantly of a private nature, the same can be annulled irrespective of the fact that the trial has already been concluded and appeal stands dismissed against conviction.

8. Learned counsel submits that so far as the offence involved in the present case are non-compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C., but they can be compounded with the permission. He also submits that considering the nature of dispute between the parties, the present case may be permitted to be compromised and in view of the compromise, the conviction as well as the sentence of the petitioner may be set-aside, so that the peace may resume between the parties.

9. The opposite party No.2 has no objection, if the present revision is allowed as the dispute between the parties have already been settled amongst them. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has further submitted that the conviction as well as the sentence of the petitioner be set-aside.

10. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has also consented for the aforesaid prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

11. Learned counsel for the State Mr. Suraj Verma has no objection to the prayer made by the parties in I.A. No.5741 of 2021. During the course of argument, he also submits that the dispute between the parties is in the realm of the private dispute between the parties.

12. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the allegation levelled in the present case appears to be in the nature of private dispute between the parties. It appears that there was some money transaction between the petitioner and t