Criminal Revision No. 1431 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 1431 of 2008 Date of Decision: 5.8.2008 Badri Ram and Another …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and Another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. A.K.Khunger Advocate for the petitioners. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Nirmala Devi daughter of Maman Ram, accused No.3, was married with Rajinder Kumar. Nirmala Devi had strained relations with her husband Rajinder Kumar. Mahabir Parshad brother of Rajinder Kumar is the complainant. It is stated that on 21.9.1998 Maman Ram along with his two sons namely Badri Ram and Ram Chand had gone to settle the matrimonial dispute and had forcibly entered the house of Mahabir Parshad. This Court need not dwell upon the necessary facts, suffice it to say that the matrimonial relationship had led to the occurrence in which Maman Ram along with his two sons were convicted under Sections 452, 336 and 34 IPC. Aggrieved against the same, they had filed an appeal. During the pendency of appeal, a compromise has been arrived at between the Criminal Revision No. 1431 of 2008 2 parties. It has been stated in compromise (Annexure P2) that Nirmala Devi daughter of deceased Maman Ram who was in matrimonial dispute with Rajinder Kumar had resolved the dispute and the matter has been compromised. The compromise was sought to be placed on the record of the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court has rightly held that the application is not maintainable as counsel has not stated that under which provision of law the application has been filed. Section 482 Cr.P.C. is only available to the High Court which enjoys inherent jurisdiction and the lower Appellate Court has no such jurisdiction. Be as it may, the matrimonial dispute has been resolved. Counsel for the petitioner, if so advised, may file an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. or 391 Cr.P.C. for proving and bringing on record the compromise as evidence. The Courts have always held that compromise promotes amity, harmony and cordial relations between the parties and bring an end to bad blood and feud. Especially in matrimonial disputes compromise should always be taken into consideration by the Court as a finest hour. Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 2007(3) Recent Criminal Reports 1052 to state that the disputes should be resolved amicably and the litigation should be allowed to come to an end. Counsel for the petitioners contends that the Appellate Court can always take compromise into consideration as mitigating circumstance. In the present case Section 452 IPC is a non-compoundable offence. Section Criminal Revision No. 1431 of 2008 3 452 IPC prescribes seven years imprisonment and fine. Compromise after conviction can accrue probation or sentence already undergone in favour of the petitioners as submitted by counsel for the petitioners. This Court cannot say anything regarding the discretion of the Appellate Court which dispense justice in the facts and circumstances of the case. I have no doubt if the compromise is placed on record and the same is canvassed in the right earnest. The Courts will always take the compromise in its right perspective. With these observations, the present petition is disposed off. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge August 5, 2008 “DK”