Crl.R. No. 1200 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.R. No. 1200 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.11.2011 ... Manohar ................Petitioner vs. State of Haryana and another .................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. Lokesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Sh. Amandeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Sh. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the complainant. ... K.C. Puri, J. This is a revision petition against the judgment dated 19.4.2010 passed by Sh. Gulab Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 18.8.2009 and 19.8.2009 respectively, passed by Smt. Anshu Shukla, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, was dismissed qua petitioner. Briefly stated, Manohar, Om Parkash and Krishana were sent to stand trial for offence under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC in FIR No. Crl.R. No. 1200 of 2010 -2- 48 dated 26.1.2002 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar and Smt. Anshu Shukla, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, vide judgment and order dated 18.8.2009/19.8.2009, convicted all the accused and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of ` 2,000/- each under Section 498-A IPC and further sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay fine of ` 1,000/- each in respect of offence under Section 406 IPC. All the convicts, including the petitioner, preferred the appeal. Sh. Gulab Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, vide judgment dated 19.4.2010 dismissed the appeal qua petitioner Manohar. The petitioner has challenged both the judgments dated 18.8.2009/19.8.2009 and 19.4.2010, referred to above through the present revision petition. During the pendency of the revision petition, the matter has been amicably settled. Compromise Annexure P-4 and affidavit of Kiran Devi – complainant has been placed on the file as Annexure P- 5. Counsel for the complainant – Kiran Devi is also present and has stated at the Bar that the matter has been compromised. Bombay High Court in the Criminal Revision Application No. 108 of 2007 titled as Fakira Shamrao Sormare vs. The State of Maharashtra, has held that keeping in view the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in authority reported as B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another AIR 2003 SC 1386, the compounding of offence in respect of matrimonial dispute, can be Crl.R. No. 1200 of 2010 -3- allowed even in revision petition. Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and keeping in view the abovesaid authority, I am of the considered view that parties should be allowed to compound the offence. Consequently, the revision petition stands accepted. The judgments dated 18.8.2009/19.8.2009 and 19.4.2010, stand set aside and the petitioner stands acquitted in view of the compromise. ( K.C. Puri ) 18.11.2011 Judge chugh