1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 114 of 2024 ------ Wasim Akram ……Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Abhijit Roy ....…Opp. Parties ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, A.P.P For the O.P No.2 : Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate : Ms. Tanu Kumari, Advocate ------ Order No: 06/ Dated: 27.02.2025 This Criminal Revision has been filed on behalf of the petitioner by challenging the judgment dated 27.07.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 2024 by Sri Ram Sharma, learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad by which the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 09.05.2024 passed by the learned A.C.J.M, Dhanbad in connection with G.R. Case No. 2462 of 2018 (arising out of Jharia P.S Case No. 119 of 2018 by which the petitioner namely Wasim Akram was held guilty for the offences under Section 279 and Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I for six (06) months and to pay the fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he is further directed to undergo S.I for fifteen days under Section 279 of I.P.C and sentenced to undergo R.I for six (06) months with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of fine, he is further directed to undergo S.I for forty five (45) days under Section 337 of I.P.C. respectively. 2. It appears that earlier vide order dated 21.01.2025, the petitioner was exempted from surrendering before the learned 2 Court below on the ground of compromise. I.A No. 11599 of 2024 3. I.A No. 11599 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of both the sides by way of Joint Compromise Petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned judgments and order of sentence passed by the learned Courts below are illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is further submitted the petitioner and O.P No. 2 have settled their dispute and they have filed Joint Compromise Petition by filing I.A No. 11599 of 2024 and the petitioner has paid Rs. 80,000/- to the O.P No. 2 by way of compensation and hence, the impugned judgments and order of sentence passed by the learned Courts below may be set aside and this Criminal Revision Application may by allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P has raised no objection. 6. Learned counsel for the O.P No. 2 has submitted that the case has been compromised between the petitioner and O.P No. 2. The learned counsel for the O.P No.2 also admitted the factum of compromise between the petitioner and O.P No.2. It is submitted that O.P No. 2 has received Rs. 80,000/- from the petitioner by way of compensation and hence, the O.P No. 2 has no objection if this Criminal Revision application is allowed. 7. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and from perusal of the records, it appears that the leg of the son of the petitioner was fractured in a road accident. 8. Perused the I. A No. 11599 of 2024, records of this case and L.C.R and considered the submission of both the sides. 9. Paragraph Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 of the I. A No. 11599 of 2024 read as follows:- “Para:-3 It is stated that the parties hereto have quite 3 sensibly thought over the issue of future prospects including both impact and benefits and have arrived on conclusion that it would be better that the parties may get settled the dispute. Para:-4 It is stated that the parties have compromised their dispute with respect to the subject matter of G.R Case No. 2462 of 2018 arising out of Jharia P.S. Case No. 119 of 2018 and pursuant to the compromise entered into between the parties the amount of Rs. 80,000 have already been paid to the informant/opposite party no. 2 as compensation of the alleged accident in connection with the aforesaid cases. Para:-5 It is stated that in view of the compromise taken place between the parties, the impugned judgments of conviction as well as the order of sentence may be set aside, as the parties have no grievance against each other. Para:-7 It is stated that as no public policy is involved in the present case, permission may be granted to compound the offence in the interest of justice. Para:-8 It is stated that the compromise has been entered into between the parties amicably without any coercion and threat”. 10. It also appears that the case has been compromised between the petitioner and O.P No. 2 and the petitioner has paid Rs. 80,000/- to the O.P No. 2 by way of compensation. 11. The above I. A No. 11599 of 2024 has been filed by the petitioner and O. P No. 2 and they have put their respective signatures on the Joint Compromise Petition and even Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for the O.P No. 2 have put their respective signatures in the above Joint Compromise Petition filed vide I. A No. 11599 of 2024 and the petitioner and the O.P. No. 2 have also sworn their respective affidavits dated 17.10.2024 4 which have been kept at Page 8 and 10 respectively to this I.A. No. 11599 of 2024 along with their respective Aadhar Cards. 12. It appears that O.P No. 2 has no grievance against the petitioner. 13. Accordingly, the judgment dated 27.07.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 2024 by Sri Ram Sharma, learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.05.2024 passed by the learned A.C.J.M, Dhanbad in connection with G.R. Case No. 2462 of 2018 (arising out of Jharia P.S Case No. 119 of 2018 are set aside in the interest of justice and in the light of Joint Compromise Petition filed by both the parties. 14. Accordingly, the petitioner namely Wasim Akram is acquitted for the offences under Sections 279 and 337 of I.P.C. 15. Thus, this Criminal Revision No. 114 of 2025 and I.A. No. 11599 of 2024 are allowed in terms of compromise and stand disposed of. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Avinash/