IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL COMPROMISE APPLICATION NO. 373/2009 In CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 554 of 2001 (Old No. 763/1992) Ranvir Singh & Another .…. Appellants Versus State …… Respondent April 22, 2009 Mr. R.C. Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Rajendra Kotiyal, Adv. for the appellants. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for the complainant. HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. This appeal, preferred by the appellants under Section 374(2) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Cr.P.C.’), is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.3.1992 passed by Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal in Sessions Trial No. 17 of 1989, State v. Ranvir Singh & Anr., whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellants/accused Ranvir Singh and Ummed Singh under Section 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, I.P.C.) and sentenced both of them to undergo four months’ R.I. under the said section. 2. Parties have filed a compromise application stating therein that they have entered into compromise and the dispute has amicably been settled between them outside the court. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the compromise application and other materials available on record. 2 4. On 16.3.1987, appellants Ranvir Singh and Ummed Singh with Dalip Singh, father of appellant no. 1 tried to assault the complainant Sher Singh and his son Shurvir Singh and a fight took place between the parties, in which complainant Sher Singh, his son Shurvir Singh, appellant no. 1 Ranvir Singh and his father Dalip Singh suffered injuries. Dalip Singh later on succumbed to his injuries on the same day. Shurvir Singh lodged the report in the concerned police station on the same day. When no action was taken by the police, the complaint was filed by Sher Singh in the court of concerned CJM. 5. Appellants Ranvir Singh and Shurvir Singh are cousin brothers. Appellant no. 2, Ummed Singh is brother-in-law of appellant no. 1. Complainant Sher Singh has died on 2.8.2005 and report to this effect has been submitted by the CJM, Tehri Garhwal. 6. Appellants have been convicted under Section 323/34 I.P.C. Offence under this section is compoundable. Section 320 of Cr.P.C. provides that offence under Section 323 I.P.C. can be compounded by the person to whom the hurt is caused and sub-clause (b) of clause (4) of this section prescribes as under: “When the person who would otherwise be competent to compound an offence under this section is dead, the legal representative, as defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) of such person may, with the consent of the Court, compound such offence.” 7. Shurvir Singh is son and legal heir of complainant Sher Singh (deceased). It has been stated in the compromise application that Shurvir Singh on his 3 behalf as well as on behalf of his father is entitled to file the compromise. Compromise application is duly accompanied by the affidavits of appellants-Ranvir Singh and Ummed Singh and Shurvir Singh, son of complainant Sher Singh (deceased). 8. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal proposition (supra), compromise application is allowed. Appellants Ranvir Singh and Ummed Singh are acquitted of the charge under Section 323/34 I.P.C. on the basis of the compromise filed by the parties and accepted by this Court. Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 31.3.1992 passed by the Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal in Sessions Trial No. 17 of 1989, State v. Ranvir Singh & Anr. is hereby set aside and sentence of four months’ R.I. awarded to each of the appellants under the said section is quashed. Appellants are on bail. They need no surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled. Sureties are discharges. 9. Appeal is accordingly disposed of. Let the lower court record be sent back. (Dharam Veer, J.) 22.04.2009 PRABODH