CRM-M 23867 of 2009 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M 23867 of 2009 Date of Decision: 4.11.2009 Avtar Singh and others ..Petitioners. Vs. State of Punjab and another ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mr.P.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Ranbir Singh Rawat, AAG Punjab for the respondent/State. Mr.Aman Dhir, Advocate for complainant/respondent No.2. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, `Cr.P.C.') for quashing of FIR No.35 dated 24.6.1999 registered under Sections 323, 324, 325, 452, 506, 34 IPC at Police Station Joga and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of a compromise arrived at between the parties. The aforesaid FIR was registered on the complaint of respondent No.2 (Pala Ram) against Avtar Singh @ Toti, Harbans Singh, Jagraj Singh, Jagsir Singh and Sukhwinder Singh. All the accused were tried in a Criminal Case No.14 of 29.7.1999 in the Court of Mr.H.S.Gill, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mansa and vide his judgment dated 12.12.2006, were acquitted of the charges framed against them by giving them benefit of doubt. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the State had filed Criminal Appeal IPC-58 dated 19.3.2007 against the order of CRM-M 23867 of 2009 -2- acquittal which is pending in the Court of Mr.M.P.Singh Pahwa, Addl.District Judge (FTC) Mansa. It is submitted that one of the accused, namely, Jagraj Singh has already expired and during the pendency of the appeal, a compromise has been effected between the parties, as a result of which the complainant (respondent No.2) filed an application dated 14.8.2008 in the Court of aforesaid Addl.Distt.Judge (FTC), Mansa alleging that the complainant and the accused are residents of the same village and with the intervention of Panchayat and respectables of the village, a compromise has been effected, therefore, respondent No.2 had alleged that he wanted to withdraw the aforesaid criminal matter and did not want any action to be taken against the accused/petitioners. He (respondent No.2) had also filed a revision against the order of acquittal but later on he filed an application to withdraw that revision petition on the ground of compromise effected between the parties. The prayer made by the complainant (respondent No.2) was declined by the learned Court vide its order dated 2.12.2008 on the ground that one of the offences under Section 452 IPC is non-compoundable, therefore, the matter cannot be compounded. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that under Section 320(5) of Cr.P.C. the Court before which an appeal is pending, offences can be compounded with the leave of the Court. In terms of this Provision, the application was moved but the same has been declined by the learned Appellate Court vide order dated 2.12.2008. He also submits that in terms of Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C. the effect of the composition of an offence shall have the effect of acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded. CRM-M 23867 of 2009 -3- Counsel for the complainant has stated that he has no objection in case offence under Section 452 IPC is also compounded. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case in which all the accused have been acquitted by the Court below and the complainant had also moved an application for withdrawal of the revision petition after a compromise having been effected between the parties, being the residents of the same village, State appeal against the order of acquittal to proceed only in case of offence under Section 452 IPC would not be in the interest of justice. Thus, order dated 2.12.2008 (Annexure P-3) is set aside. The case is remanded back to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC) Mansa with permission to compound the offence under Section 452 IPC as well and pass the order in accordance with law in appeal in terms of the provision under Section 320(5) Cr.P.C. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition is accordingly disposed of. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 4.11.2009 Judge Meenu