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.

Arjun Baretha Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Arjun Baretha vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jan 23, 2013
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1049548

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

Arjun Baretha

Advocate Shri. Dinesh Upadhyaya

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

1 m.cr.c no.15228/2012 23/1/2013 shri dinesh upadhyaya, counsel for the petitioners.shri vinot fouzdar, learned panel lawyer for the respondent / state. this petition has been preferred under section 482 of cr.p.c for setting aside the order dated 11.9.2012 passed by the learned additional sessions judge, tikamgarh in criminal appeal no.500/2011, declining the compromise petition of the parties, for incident occurred on 27.7.2010 between the petitioners and injured person yasvant vide annexure a/5 jmfc, tikamgarh convicted the petitioners under section 327 of ipc sentenced them six months ri with fine of rs.1000/- each. aforesaid judgment is challenged in the appeal by the petitioners.in courts below petitioners and the injured person submitted written compromise petition, duly singed by the parties, but it was declined on the ground that allege offnece is not compoundable, even with the permission of the court. under inherent power, this court is supposed 2 m.cr.c no.15228/2012 to pass any order against the spirit of the provision of the act. hence, apparently no direction can be issued, to accept the compromise or to make compromise petition as basis of acquittal of the petitioners.however, in the interest of justice, fact of compromise between the parties can very well be considered for awarding lesser sentence in the matter. in the interest of justice and in the fitness of the thing the appellate court is directed to consider the matter on merits, if it reaches to the conclusion of awarding of the sentence then on the basis of aforesaid compromise petition, a lenient view should be adopted by the appellate court. with the aforesaid observation and direction, this, petition is disposed of. cc as per rules. (tarun kumar kaushal) judge dcs/-

Full Judgment

1 M.Cr.C No.15228/2012 23/1/2013 Shri Dinesh Upadhyaya, counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Vinot Fouzdar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent / State.

This petition has been preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for setting aside the order dated 11.9.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh in Criminal Appeal No.500/2011, declining the compromise petition of the parties, for incident occurred on 27.7.2010 between the petitioners and injured person Yasvant vide Annexure A/5 JMFC, Tikamgarh convicted the petitioners under Section 327 of IPC sentenced them six months RI with fine of Rs.1000/- each.

Aforesaid judgment is challenged in the appeal by the petitioneRs.In Courts below petitioners and the injured person submitted written compromise petition, duly singed by the parties, but it was declined on the ground that allege offnece is not compoundable, even with the permission of the Court.

Under inherent power, this Court is supposed 2 M.Cr.C No.15228/2012 to pass any order against the spirit of the provision of the Act.

Hence, apparently no direction can be issued, to accept the compromise or to make compromise petition as basis of acquittal of the petitioneRs.However, in the interest of justice, fact of compromise between the parties can very well be considered for awarding lesser sentence in the matter.

In the interest of justice and in the fitness of the thing the appellate Court is directed to consider the matter on merits, if it reaches to the conclusion of awarding of the sentence then on the basis of aforesaid compromise petition, a lenient view should be adopted by the appellate Court.

With the aforesaid observation and direction, this, petition is disposed of.

Cc as per rules.

(Tarun Kumar Kaushal) JUDGE dcs/-

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial