CRA No.226-SB of 2002 (O&M) and -1- CRA No.461-SB of 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No.226-SB of 2002 (O&M) Date of Decision : 28.07.2010 Bittu @ Krishan Lal .......Appellant Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent AND Criminal Appeal No.461-SB of 2002 Maru Ram .......Appellant Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. S S Dinarpur, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant(s). Mr. Kshitij Sharma, AAG, Haryana. **** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. CRM No.38054 of 2010 The application is allowed. Compromise deed, Annexure P-5, is taken on record. CRA Nos.226-SB and 461-SB of 2002 1. This judgment shall dispose of two criminals appeals, namely, CRA No.226-SB of 2002 and CRA No.461-SB of 2002 filed by the CRA No.226-SB of 2002 (O&M) and -2- CRA No.461-SB of 2002 appellants namely, Bittu and Maru Ram, respectively against the judgment and order dated 22.01.2002/29.01.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (I) Panchkula (hereinafter as 'trial Court'). However, the facts are being derived from CRA No.226-SB of 2002. 2. The present criminal appeals have been preferred by the accused- appellants against the judgment and order dated 22.01.2002/29.01.2002 convicting them under Section 366/34 IPC thereby sentencing each of them to undergo seven years' RI and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 1 ½ years. 3. The prosecution case according to the deposition of PW8-Meena Kumari, daughter of Baru Ram, reads as under: - “That on 21.7.1999 at about 4.30 PM I have gone to Kalka at Gupta Commercial College Type College to learn the typing. When I was going near the narrow guage railway crossing then a car came behind bearing No.HR10C 0010. The car stopped near me. Out of the car accused Maru Ram, present in the court alighted. He caught hold of my arm and forcibly pulled me inside the car. Accused Bittu present in the court was diving the car. The window panes of the car which were all black colour were up. Two other boys were also sitting in the car. One of them is accused Ram Pal present in the Court. I can identify the accused boy if he is produced before me. The accused person took the car towards Panchkula via Pinjore. They parked the car in an isolated place in the way accused Bittu and Maru got me down from the car and they started driving towards bushes with an intention to commit rape. In the meanwhile Suchha Singh CRA No.226-SB of 2002 (O&M) and -3- CRA No.461-SB of 2002 resident of village Tagra Hansua reached there he asked the accused persons as to what they were doing. He also asked the accused persons to leave me otherwise he will report the matter to the police and my parents. On hearing this all the accused left me and ran away from the spot. After that Sucha Singh brought me in his car to Kalka and left me near the railway station. After that I went to my home and narrated the entire evidence to my parents. Thereafter reported the matter to the police.” 4. After completing the investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented whereupon the accused-appellants, along with one Ram Lal son of Fakir Chand (co-accused), were charge-sheeted under Section 363/366/34 of the IPC. However, the accused (appellants herein) were served charge-sheet under Section 506 of IPC also to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. In order to substantiate the charge against the accused persons examined as many as eight witnesses. 6. Constable Sanjay Pal who prepared the site plan Ex.PA as PW1; HC Manjit Singh who proved recovery memo Ex.P8 vide which the Maruti Car No.HR 10C 0010 was taken into possession as PW2; Renu, who was running a Typing College in the name and style of Gupta Commercial Type College, Railway Road Kalka as PW3; Baru Ram, father of the prosecutrix as PW7; Surjit Lal, SI, SHO, Investigation Officer as PW8 deposed about investigation of the case and presentation of challan against them. 7. Sucha Ram @ Mohinder Pal Singh as PW4 and Surinder Kumar as PW5 were declared as hostile and cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution. CRA No.226-SB of 2002 (O&M) and -4- CRA No.461-SB of 2002 8. The statements of all the three accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. while putting them incriminating circumstances and material coming on record against them and they claimed to be innocent and pleaded false implication in the case. 9. After hearing both the parties, vide judgment dated 22.01.2002, learned trial Court acquitted accused-Ram Lal and convicted the present appellants for the commission of offence u/s 366/34 IPC and the term as mentioned in para 2 of this judgment. 10. The appeals in hand have been filed by the accused-appellants separately. Criminal Appeal No. 226-SB of 2002 was admitted on 07.02.2002 whereas Criminal Appeal No. 416-SB of 2002 was admitted on 19.03.2002. Accused-appellant Bittu alias Krishan Lal was admitted to bail vide order dated 16.09.2002 and accused Maru Ram was admitted to bail on 22.11.2002. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants, vide application being CRM No.38054 of 2010, has placed on record copy of compromise dated 25.7.2010 (Annexure P-5) whereby compromise has been arrived at between the prosecutrix and the present appellants, with the intervention of respectable persons and relations of both the parties. Clause 3, 4 and 5 of the compromise (Annexure P-5) reads as under:- "3. That during the pendency of the appeals aforementioned, due to intervention of the respectable persons and common relations, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. 4. That since the matter has been amicably resolved. First party has no objection if a lenient view is taken against 2nd party CRA No.226-SB of 2002 (O&M) and -5- CRA No.461-SB of 2002 by the Hon'ble High Court at the time of decision in the pending appeal. 5. If 2nd party have to maintain harmony in future and not to touch the feeling of 1st party as she has already faced/beared due to the present incident in this case." 12. Mr. Baru Ram, father of the prosecutrix present in the Court has made a statement that he and his daughter have no grouse against the appellants and the matter has been resolved amicably with the intervention of respectable persons and relations of both the parties and he does not wish to pursue the matter. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court titled Satya Narain V. State of Haryana, 2009(3) RCR (Criminal) 97, which is based upon the Larger Bench judgment of this Court rendered in 'Kulwinder Singh and others V. State of Punjab and another' reported as 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, and following view has been taken:- "32. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be exercised Ex-Debitia Justitia to prevent an abuse of process of Court. There can neither be an exhaustive list nor the defined para-meters to enable a High Court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The exercise of power has to be with circumspection and restrian. The Court is a vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to maintain and CRA No.226-SB of 2002 (O&M) and -6- CRA No.461-SB of 2002 control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever-lasting congeniality in society. Resolution of a dipute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savager." 14. Learned State counsel does not dispute the execution and veracity of the compromise (Annexure P-5). 15. In my considered view, since the dispute stands already resolved which is reflected in the compromise. The prosecutrix has also given no objection if a lenient view is taken against the appellants. Thus, it would be in the interest of justice that the sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. 16. Ordered accordingly. The bail bonds of the appellants shall stand discharged. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) 28.07.2010 JUDGE atulsethi Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No