Subhash Chand vs. Vijay Kumar

Held

The National Lok Adalat noted that the matter had been referred for determination and that both parties had voluntarily and amicably settled the dispute. The terms of the settlement, including the payment of Rs. 2,15,000/- by the petitioner to the complainant and the release of Rs. 85,000/- deposited in court to the complainant, were accepted by both parties. The Court found that the matter stood finally settled with nothing further due. Consequently, the compounding of the offense was permitted, which, as per the judgment, has the effect of acquittal. The petitioner-accused was accordingly acquitted. The Lok Adalat deemed it inexpedient to impose any compounding fee due to the cost-effective and speedy disposal of the matter. The operative direction was for the file to be sent to the Registry of the High Court for necessary action and consignment.

Facts

This matter was referred to the National Lok Adalat for determination. The petitioner, Subhash Chand, and respondent No. 1, Vijay Kumar, along with their respective counsel, were present. Both parties voluntarily and amicably settled the dispute with their free consent, without undue influence or misrepresentation. As per the settlement, the complainant (respondent No. 1) received Rs. 2,15,000/- from the accused-petitioner. An additional Rs. 85,000/- deposited before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P., was agreed to be paid and released to the complainant. The parties confirmed that nothing further was due between them, and the settlement was accepted by both sides.

Key Issues

1. Whether the criminal revision petition should be compounded and the matter settled amicably between the parties, given the settlement terms reached. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner, through their counsel, presented the settlement agreement arrived at with the respondent. They contended that the parties had voluntarily and amicably resolved all their differences, including the financial aspects, and sought the compounding of the offense and acquittal based on this settlement. Revenue/State's arguments: None for the respondent No. 2-State were recorded in the judgment. The respondent No. 1 (complainant) was present and participated in the settlement, implying their agreement to the terms.