In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 511 of 2009 Date of Decision:March 20, 2009 Sadiq Masih @ Gora ---Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. Ashok Giri,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab Mr.Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate, for respondent No. 2 *** SABINA, J. Sadiq Masih @ Gora -petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') vide judgment dated 6.11.2007 by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar. Vide order or even date passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 420 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide judgment dated 14.2.2009 Hence, the present revision petition. Crl. Revision No. 511 of 2009 -2- Prosecution story, in brief, as noticed by the learned Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, is as under:- “The prosecution story, in nutshell is that on 30.6.1997 statement of Kasturi Lal complainant Ex.PA was recorded that he is resident of Botta Pind and is labourer. Sadiq Masih son of Sharif Masih, Tarsem Lal son of Mohinder and Ashok Kumar son of Makhan, who are working as travel agents approached him at his residence and told him that some 500 workers are required for German company, who is working in Kathmandu (Nepal) and he would charge Rs.35,000/- for sending him there. After sometime, they alongwith Balwinder Kumar again approached him for that purpose and he handed over the amount of Rs.35,000/- which was lying in his house to them on 28.5.97, Sadiq Masih took him from his residence and they reached at Bus Stand, where eight other persons, namely Sandeep Masih, Samual Masih, Suraj, Som Dutt, Surjit Singh, Harnek Singh and Balwinder Kumar were already present and they have also paid Rs.35,000/- each to them for settlement in Kathmandu. Thereafter, they took them at Delhi, from where they were taken to Kathmandu by air. They were made to stay in hotel, but thereafter these persons left the place. He sated that after waiting for 7-8 days, when these persons did not return, they came back to India. He stated that all these persons have cheated him. This statement Ex.PA was read over and explained to him, who signed the same after admitted it correct and after making endorsement, it was sent to the police station, on the basis of which Crl. Revision No. 511 of 2009 -3- formal FIR was recorded. Investigation of the case was conducted. All the accused, except Tarsem Lal were arrested, who was declared as proclaimed offender. The air tickets were taken into possession of the police. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, the challan against Sadiq Masih, Ashok Kumar and Mohan Lal was presented.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that now the petitioner has arrived at a compromise with the complainant-Kasturi Lal as well as Samual Masih and Suraj from whom he had allegedly received money. Samual Masih, Suraj and Kasturi Lal are present in Court in person along with counsel and their affidavits have been placed on record. A perusal of the affidavits of the complainant, Suraj and Samual Masih reveal that now they have settled their dispute with the petitioner and have received full and final amount in pursuance to the said settlement and have no objection if the petitioner was acquitted of the charge framed against him. Offence under Section 429 IPC is compoundable with the permission of the court at the instance of the person who has been allegedly cheated. Keeping in view the affidavits of the complainant, Samual Masih and Suraj, offence is allowed to be compounded. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned judgment of the courts below are set aside. Petitioner is acquitted as offence under Section 420 Crl. Revision No. 511 of 2009 -4- IPC qua which he was convicted by the courts below has been compounded. Fine deposited by the petitioner be treated as costs of the proceedings. (SABINA) JUDGE March 20, 2009 PARAMJIT