Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Jagdish Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Jagdish vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Aug 28, 2012
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1042594

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jagdish

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

cr.a.no.1397/2012 28.08.2012 shri aseem dixit, advocate for the appellants. shri ajay tamrakar, panel lawyer for the respondent-state. shri r.s.patel, advocate for the complainant phoolrani. heard on ia no.17782/12 and ia no.17783/12, applications relating to compromise for seeking permission and to record the compromise. today complainant phoolrani was sent before the registrar judicial (i) to observe her voluntariness to do compromise. registrar judicial (i) has informed that the complainant is willing and she has compounded the offence with free consent. the compromise was also recorded by the registrar judicial (i).the appellants are convicted for the offence under section 325 or 325/34 of ipc which is compoundable. under such circumstances, looking to the voluntariness of the complainant, she is permitted to do compromise with the appellants. compromise filed by the parties, which is duly signed by learned counsel for the appellants is considered. since the offences are compoundable, therefore compromise is accepted. in the result, the appellants are acquitted from the charges of offence under section 325 or 325/34 of ipc. consequently, the present appeal is hereby allowed on the basis of compromise done between the parties. the conviction as well as the sentence directed against the appellants for commission of offence punishable under section 325 or 325/34 of ipc is hereby set aside. the appellants are acquitted from the aforesaid charges. office is directed to issue release warrants against the appellants so that they may be released forthwith. (n.k.gupta) judge ansari

Full Judgment

Cr.A.No.1397/2012 28.08.2012 Shri Aseem Dixit, Advocate for the appellants.

Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.

Shri R.S.Patel, Advocate for the complainant Phoolrani.

Heard on IA No.17782/12 and IA No.17783/12, applications relating to compromise for seeking permission and to record the compromise.

Today complainant Phoolrani was sent before the Registrar Judicial (I) to observe her voluntariness to do compromise.

Registrar Judicial (I) has informed that the complainant is willing and she has compounded the offence with free consent.

The compromise was also recorded by the Registrar Judicial (I).The appellants are convicted for the offence under Section 325 or 325/34 of IPC which is compoundable.

Under such circumstances, looking to the voluntariness of the complainant, she is permitted to do compromise with the appellants.

Compromise filed by the parties, which is duly signed by learned counsel for the appellants is considered.

Since the offences are compoundable, therefore compromise is accepted.

In the result, the appellants are acquitted from the charges of offence under Section 325 or 325/34 of IPC.

Consequently, the present appeal is hereby allowed on the basis of compromise done between the parties.

The conviction as well as the sentence directed against the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Section 325 or 325/34 of IPC is hereby set aside.

The appellants are acquitted from the aforesaid charges.

Office is directed to issue release warrants against the appellants so that they may be released forthwith.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial