IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-7293 of 2008 Date of decision: 19th February, 2009 Shamsher Singh @ Shamsher and others … Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Parminder Singh Grewal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Anter Singh Brar, Deputy Advocate General Punjab for the State. Mr. Rajinder Singh, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) On a complaint filed by Shamsher Singh son of Balwinder Singh, Mithu Singh @ Joginder Singh and Ruldu Singh have been convicted by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot under Sections 326, 323 and 34 IPC. This complaint was a cross-version to FIR No.68 dated 09.07.2001 registered at Police Station Sadar Faridkot under Sections 323, 324, 325, 34 IPC. In the FIR case, Balwinder Singh, Shamsher Singh and Joginder Singh have been convicted and sentenced for offences under Sections 324, 325, 323 read with Section 34 IPC. Both the parties have filed appeals. Mithu Singh and Ruldu Singh are present in Court. They have been identified by their counsel, Mr.Rajinder Singh. Balwinder Singh and Joginder Singh are also present in Court and they have been identified by their counsel, Mr.Parminder Singh Grewal. Head Constable Baljit Singh of Police Station Sadar, Faridkot is Criminal Misc. No. M-7293 of 2008 also present in Court to assist Mr. Anter Singh Brar, Deputy Advocate General Punjab. He has also identified the accused present in the Court. It has been stated by the parties, that they have arrived at a compromise, as they are living in the same village and are neighbourers. It has been further stated that due to intervention of the respectables and members of panchayat, they have buried the feud and they intend to promote everlasting peace, amity and harmony. A question arise, whether powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised when the accused have been convicted and their appeal is pending before the appellate Court. I am afraid that judgment of conviction cannot be quashed by this Court. However, it has been held by the courts that the Court should always come forward to grant due sanctity to the compromise and if the parties want to live in peace, then the compromise can be taken into consideration while determining quantum of sentence. Counsel for the petitioner, if so desire, may cite various judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, where sentence has been reduced to already undergone. I have no doubt in my mind that if such an exercise is undertaken by the counsel for the parties, the appellate Court will show due magnanimity. With these observations, present petition is disposed off. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE February 19, 2009 rps 2