1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 44609 of 2008 and Crl. Appeal No. 91-SB of 1997 Date of Decision: 10.11.2008 *** Chet Ram & Anr. .. Appellants Vs. State of Haryana. .. Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ravi Dhaliwal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. N.P.S. Kohli, Advocate for the complainant & injured. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG Haryana *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Crl. Misc. No.44609 of 2008 is allowed and compromise deed is taken on record. The appellants were tried by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hisar for the offences under Sections 307 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 307 IPC respectively with the allegations that on 24.10.1993 they, in furtherance of each other, assaulted Dharampal, the uncle of complainant Chatar Singh and inflicted a knife blow in his abdomen. On conclusion of trial, the trial court held appellant Chet Ram guilty under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default thereof further imprisonment for six months was awarded, while the appellant Dharampal was proved guilty under Section 307 IPC and was awarded rigorous imprisonment for seven years and directed him to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of which he was required to undergo further imprisonment for six 2 months. Although the appellants filed the instant appeal and laid challenge to the judgment of their conviction and sentence on various grounds, but before the appeal could be heard, the appellants have placed on record the compromise (Annexure A-1) along with affidavit of injured Dharampal containing the factum of compromise entered between the parties and have stated that the matter has been settled amicably between them and prayed for taking a lenient view against them. Learned counsel for the complainant Chatar Singh and injured Dharampal has also stated that, as per his instructions, the matter has been compromised with the accused persons with the intervention of respectables and the complainant and the injured does not want to pursue the case against the appellants. In the case of Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya and others 1980(1) SCC 63, the Hon'ble Apex Court while summing up the essence of compromise has observed that “ The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion.” Even the Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Kulvinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, while discussing the scope of quashing of prosecution on the basis of compromise, by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even in non-compoundable offence(s) has held that the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice. However, in the case of Hasi Mohan Barman & Anr. Vs. State of Assam & Anr. 2008(1) RCR (Criminal) 70, following the ratio laid down in the case of Surendra Nath Mohanty & Anr. Vs. State of Orissa, 1999(2) All India Criminal Law Reporter, 415, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that where the parties are compounding the offence, which was not compoundable the findings of acquittal cannot be recorded in favour of the accused but the factum of compromise could be taken into consideration for reducing the sentence. In the instant case now both the parties, who belongs to same 3 village, have decided to live in peace by amicably deciding the matter. A settlement, which emerges out from the hearts of the individual will be most lasting as compared to one which will be enforced by penal provision of law. In the case in hand, an attempt has also been made by the parties to rehabilitate in life, which this Court feels is required to be appreciated. The incident pertains to the year 1993. The appellants have already undergone the agony of protracted trial as well as appeal for more than one and a half decade. As per information supplied, appellants have undergone about 7 months of sentence in relation to the present incident. There is nothing on the file which is suggestive of the fact that during this period the appellants are found indulged in similar type of offence. Therefore, in view of the settlement having arrived at between both the parties coupled with the legal position, referred to above, the order of conviction of the appellants is upheld. However, the sentences awarded to them, as referred above, is reduced to the one already undergone by them. With the above modification, the instant appeal stands disposed of. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE November 10,2008 Jiten