Criminal Revision No. 1785 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1785 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 01.11.2011 Sardool Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. G.S. Nagra, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. G.S. Cheema, Sr. DAG, Punjab for the State. Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate RANJIT SINGH J. Crl. Misc. No. 57189 of 2011 Compromise deed taken on record. Application disposed of. Criminal Revision No. 1785 of 2011 This revision is directed against the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar upholding the conviction of the petitioners for offences under Sections 326, 324, 323 and 34 IPC. However, the appellate Court had reduced the sentence of two rigorous imprisonment to year and half upon conviction of the petitioners under Section 326 IPC and to 9 months rigorous imprisonment instead of one year as awarded by the trial Court for an offence under Sections 324/34 IPC. The sentence was further reduced to 3 months for conviction for an offence under Sections 323/34 IPC. Criminal Revision No. 1785 of 2011 (O&M) 2 During the pendency of revision, the parties have reached a compromise. Criminal Miscellaneous application has been moved to place on record the compromise. The said prayer has been allowed vide separate order and the compromise deed has been taken on record. The perusal of the pleadings would show that this was a case of fight between real brothers and the nephew. Complainant- Sucha Singh is the real brother of Sardool singh and Major Singh is an uncle of Hardial Singh. Respectables of the society have intervened and have made the parties to settle their differences and so the parties have compromised. The compromise statedly was reached without any pressure. As per the compromise, complainant- Sucha Singh has no objection if the petitioners are acquitted of the charges as they being member of the same family now wish to live in peace after forgetting the incident. The complainant-Sucha Singh is present in the Court and confirms that he has reached a compromise with his real brothers and nephew. Since fight was between the family members, it is good to see that they have ultimately settled the dispute. This would be good for both the brothers to live in peace and harmony in future. The issue whether the compromise can be accepted in non-compoundable cases has been discussed in detail by this Court while disposing of Criminal Revision No. 1549 of 2009. After making reference to large number of precedents, this Court has formed a view that even in cases, which are non-compoundable, this Court would not have any restriction or hindrance for interfering while exercising revisional jurisdiction. In this regard, reference can be Criminal Revision No. 1785 of 2011 (O&M) 3 made to following cases:- Anil Kumar Hartiwal & Anr. V. Alka Gupta & Anr., 2004 (3) RCR (Criminal) 116: 2004 (3) Apex Criminal 180: [(2004) 4 SCC 366]; (2) B.C. Seshadri v. B.N. Suryanarayana Rao [2004(11) SCC 510] decided by a three Judge Bench; (3) G. Sivarajan v. Little Flower Kuries & Enterprises Ltd. & Anr. [2004(11) SCC 400]; (4) Kishore Kumar v. J.K. Corporation Ltd. [(2004) 13 SCC 494]; (5) Sailesh Shyam Parsekar v. Baban, 2006 (4) RCR (Criminal) 841 : 2006 (3) Apex Criminal 588 : [2005(4) SCC 162]; (6) K. Gyansagar v. Ganesh Gupta & Anr. 2006 (2) RCR (Criminal) 677 : [(2005) 7 SCC 54]; (7) K.J.B.L. Rama Reddy v. Annapurna Seeds & Anr. [(2005) 10 SCC 632]; (8) Sayeed Ishaque Menon v. Ansari Naseer Ahmed, 2006 (2) RCR (Criminal) 331 : 2006 (2) RCR Apex Criminal 37: [(2005) 12 SCC 140]; (9) Vinay Devanna Nayak v. Ryot Sewa Sahakari Bank Ltd., 2008 (1) RCR (Criminal) 249 : 2008 (1) RCR (Civil) 249 : 2007 (6) RAJ 558 : [(2008) 2 SCC 305]; wherein some of the earlier decisions have been noticed; and (10) Sudheer Kumar v. Manakkandi M.K. Kunhiraman & Anr., 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 97 : 2008 (2) RCR (Civil) 712 : [2008 (1) KLJ 203] which was a decision of Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, wherein also the issue has been gone into in great detail. In view of the above, the case is made out for invoking Criminal Revision No. 1785 of 2011 (O&M) 4 the inherent jurisdiction coupled with the revisional jurisdiction to rely on this compromise reached between the parties. In view of the stand taken by the complainant, it can well be presumed that he no more relies on the allegation made against the petitioners in the complaint. Accordingly, the case is made out for allowing the revision petition. It is so ordered. The conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner are quashed. The revision petition is allowed. November 01, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE