Crl.M.Nos.55194-95-96-98 of 2010 in Crl.R.No.2868 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.Nos.55194-95-96-98 of 2010 in Crl.R.No.2868 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 17, 2010 Jagram and another .....Petitioners v. The State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.S.Rohit Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.No.55195 of 2010 In view of the grounds mentioned in the application, delay of 6 days in filing the present revision petition is condoned. Crl.M.No.55194 of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.R.No.2868 of 2010(O&M) The present revision petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. by complainant-Jagram and his wife-Ombati against judgment dated 9.7.2010, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, vide which conviction of respondents-accused for offences under Sections 323, 452 read with Section 149 IPC, as recorded by learned trial Court vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8.1.2010 passed separately, was upheld and however, respondents-accused were granted benefit of probation by observing that complainant entered into compromise with the respondents-accused during the pendency of the appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the revision-petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order Crl.M.Nos.55194-95-96-98 of 2010 in Crl.R.No.2868 of 2010 (O&M) -2- dated 9.7.2010, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon. It has been contended by learned counsel for the revision- petitioner that no compromise was entered by the complainant with respondents-accused during the pendency of the appeal and that petitioner no.1, being old person, could not understand the meaning of his statement. Perusal of impugned judgment passed by learned appellate Court shows that complainant appeared before the Court alongwith his counsel and made a statement that he has arrived at a compromise with the respondents-accused. Hence, the plea of counsel for the revision- petitioner that complainant did not enter into compromise with respondents- accused during the pendency of the appeal cannot be accepted. Moreover, perusal of judgment passed by learned trial Court shows that the respondents-accused are first offenders. They have been convicted for offences under Sections 323/452 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Appellate Court in passing the impugned order by extending the benefit of probation to respondents-accused, warranting interference by this Court. There is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed. 17.12.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge