Himachal Pradesh High Court
CR.R/148/2008 of GOVIND KUMAR Vs STATE on 26 December 2008
of 2008. 26.12.2008 Present: Mr. Bimal Gupta, counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. AG, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Virender Singh , counsel for respondent No. 2. This revision petition has been preferred against the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Cr.R. 148 of 2008.
26.12.2008 Present: Mr. Bimal Gupta, counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. AG, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Virender Singh , counsel for respondent No. 2.
This revision petition has been preferred against the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein against the order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Paonta Sahib.
The order of the learned trial
Court reads:
Present: Applicant with Shri I.S.Chauhan, Adv. Shri Umesh Mohan, ld. APP for the State. Respondent/Objector with Shri S.P.Deria, Adv. -0- Today, reconciliation arrived between the parties and statements recorded separately. Heard.
In view of statements
of parties, official of Police
Station Paonta Sahib is hereby directed to visit the spot and release the shop in favour of applicant Govind Ram with the stands disposed off. The papers after due completion be tagged with the main case file.”
In appeal, the order was challenged on
a number of grounds. The appellate Court considered the statement made by the petitioner herein that he had amicably sorted out the matter and had agreed to hand over possession to the respondent herein before 31[st] March, 2008 and is also filing an application for withdrawal of the criminal case.
The judgment having been passed with
the consent of the parties, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Courts below. If the statement of the petitioner herein is not of his free consent or there are other reasons in law for not acting upon that statement, it will be open to the petitioner herein to move the learned Court below explaining that the statement in fact was not made in accordance with law or was not
-3-
binding upon the interests of the petitioner. For this purpose, the petitioner herein would be at liberty to approach the learned trial Court.
This revision is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.
December 26, 2008 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.