IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Tinku Vishwakarma, aged about 39 years, son of Biran Vishwakarma,

resident of Village and P.O. Baddiha, P.S. Giridih (M), District- Giridih

… Petitioner

-Versus-

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Meena Kumari, D/o Balmukund Vishwakarma, R/o at Baddiha, P.S.

Giridih(M), District- Giridih … Opposite Parties

-----

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

-----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, Advocate

For the State : Mr. Azeemuddin, A.P.P.

For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Virendra Kumar, Advocate

-----

06/17.12.2025 Heard Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,

Mr. Azeemuddin, learned counsel appearing for the State and Mr. Virendra

Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the informant/opposite party no.2.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this criminal revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 18.12.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Giridih in Criminal Appeal No.34/2017, by which, the learned appellate court has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.04.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Giridih in G.R. No.2157/2009 [arising out of Giridih (M) P.S. Case No.331/2009], whereby, the petitioner has been convicted under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years along with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, further direction is there to undergo S.I. for six months. He further submits that both the sides are neighbours. He then submits that now a good sense has prevailed between them and compromise has taken place. He submits that the joint compromise

petition has been filed in the form of I.A. No.2461 of 2022, which has been filed on separate affidavit on behalf of both the sides.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the compromise is there, however, there are concurrent findings of two courts.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the informant/opposite party no.2 submits that the petitioner and opposite party no.2 are neighbours and under the misconception, the case was filed and in view of that, both have reached to the compromise. He further submits that now opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed further in the matter and in view of that, this petition may kindly be disposed of.

5. Looking into the contents of the FIR, it transpires that the occurrence involved in the case can be categorized as purely personal or having overtones of criminal proceedings of private nature; secondly, the nature of allegation, for which the petitioner has been convicted, does not appear to exhibit their mental depravity or commission of an offence that quashing of which would override public interest. Further, the parties on their own volition, without any coercion or compulsion, willingly and voluntarily have buried their differences and wish to accord a quietus to their dispute. The aforesaid criteria are satisfied in the present case.

6. In view of the above and further considering the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 the prayer made in the I.A. No.2461 of 2022, meant for joint compromise, is allowed.

7. Accordingly, I.A. No.2461 of 2022 is disposed of.

8. Consequently, the judgment dated 18.12.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Giridih in Criminal Appeal No.34/2017 and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.04.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Giridih in G.R. No.2157/2009 [arising out of Giridih (M) P.S. Case No.331/2009] are, hereby, set-aside.

9. This criminal revision petition is, therefore, allowed in above terms and disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, is also disposed of.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

Dated: 17th December, 2025 Ajay/

Uploaded on