DEVA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
LAWS(SC)-2014-7-60
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: RAJASTHAN)
Decided on July 23,2014

DEVA RAM Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

DARSHAN SINGH AND ANOTHER VS. SUBHCHARANPAL KAUR AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2015-7-724] [REFERRED]
MINTA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2022-9-100] [REFERRED TO]
DHARAMVIR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2022-9-101] [REFERRED TO]
BALJINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2022-9-79] [REFERRED TO]
GURSIMRAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2022-9-97] [REFERRED TO]
GAURI SHANKAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2022-9-78] [REFERRED TO]
RAJPAL SINGH @ RAJU VS. JOGINDER SINGH AND ANR [LAWS(P&H)-2015-7-775] [REFERRED]
PARMOD AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2018-1-363] [REFERRED TO]
SUKHWINDER KAUR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2022-2-34] [REFERRED TO]
MOONLIGHT AGENCY VS. BHAGWAN DAS [LAWS(CHH)-2023-7-80] [REFERRED TO]
VEDU VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2023-4-5] [REFERRED TO]
KAMALJIT SINGH @ KOMAL AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2015-7-512] [REFERRED]
KESAR SINGH VS. STATE OF U T CHANDIGARH AND ANR [LAWS(P&H)-2015-7-520] [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The appellant was tried by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Didwana for offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC in Criminal Case No. 41/89.
(2.)Deceased Hardeva Ram filed complaint against the appellant on 9/8/1988 stating that since the appellant used to send persons abroad for employment, he also arranged passport for his son Arjun Ram. The appellant told him that if he wants to send his son abroad, he will have to pay him Rs.15,000/- and hand over his passport to him. The complainant gave him Rs.8,300/- but the appellant did not send his son abroad. The complainant asked for his money but the appellant refused to return the same. After investigation charge sheet was filed under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. The learned Magistrate framed charge under Section 420 of the IPC. The appellant denied the charge. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned Magistrate by his order dated 13/07/1992 convicted the appellant under Section 420 of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Sessions Court on 12/9/1996. The appellant filed a criminal revision application in the Rajasthan High Court which was dismissed on 23/1/2014. Being aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is filed.
(3.)It appears that original complainant expired on 30/05/1994. During the pendency of the present appeal, Arjun Ram, the heir of the original complainant and the appellant have entered into a compromise. Application for impleadment was filed by Arjun Ram in which it is confirmed that he and the appellant have compromised the matter. The said application was granted by this Court. This Court was informed that the appellant and the heir of the complainant i.e. the newly added respondent had settled all their disputes and an amount of Rs.8,000/- has already been paid to the newly added respondent. A statement was made by the counsel for the appellant that further amount of Rs.12,000/- will be paid to the newly added respondent within a period of two weeks. This statement was recorded and the matter was adjourned.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.