Crl. Misc. No.1636 of 2010 and [ 1 ] Crl. Rev. No. 34 of 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.1636 of 2010 and Crl. Rev. No. 34 of 2002 Date of Decision: Jan. 22,2010 Bhagat Singh etc. ................................... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab................................... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta Present: Mr. Jasbir Singh Chahal, Advocate for the applicants/petitioners. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate for Mrs. Mukhtiar Kaur and Kewal Singh. ... ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. (Oral) This revision was filed by the accused Bhagat Singh, Kirpal Singh and Ram Singh, who were convicted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, as well as by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide judgments dated 1.3.2001 and 22.11.2001 respectively and were sentenced as under:- Crl. Misc. No.1636 of 2010 and [ 2 ] Crl. Rev. No. 34 of 2002 Bhagat Singh U/s 326 IPC Sentence For causing grievous hurt on the left wrist of Kewal Singh with a sword. To undergo R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- or to further undergo R.I. for three months in default of payment of fine. Kirpal Singh and Ram Singh U/s 362/34 IPC Sentence For causing grievous hurt on the person of Mohar Singh To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each or to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each in default of payment of fine. Bhagat Singh, Ram Singh and Kirpal Singh U/s 324/34 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. The arguments in this revision were heard on 8.12.2009 and the judgment was reserved. Before the judgment could be pronounced, the petitioners have filed an application that as a compromise has been arrived at between the accused persons and Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur, widow of Late Shri Mohar Singh who was the complainant, and Kewal Singh (who was the injured), son of Mohar Singh, therefore, the accused be not sentenced. In this regard, a compromise between the accused- petitioners Bhagat Singh, Kirpal Singh and Ram Singh on one side and Mukhtiar Kaur and Kewal Singh, widow and son of Mohar Singh respectively, on the other side has been filed and the same is taken on record. Crl. Misc. No.1636 of 2010 and [ 3 ] Crl. Rev. No. 34 of 2002 Mr. Chahal, counsel for the petitioners, submits that he does not challenge the findings recorded by both the Courts below. However, in view of the compromise (Annexure P-2) dated 9.1.2010 the petitioners be not sentenced and sent to jail. Counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that although Section 326 Cr.P.C. is not compoundable, however, this Court has ample powers to complete justice between the parties in view of the compromise. Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 2007(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1052 and the decision of the Single Bench in Parambir Singh Gill v. Malkiat Kaur 2010 (1) RCR (Criminal) 256. Learned counsel further submits that in the present case the accused- petitioner Kirpal Singh has died during the pendency of the revision petition. Counsel for the State does not dispute the proposition of law as laid down by the aforementioned authorities. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioners have not challenged their conviction as recorded by the Courts below, therefore, I uphold the conviction of the petitioners as recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide his judgment dated 22.11.2001. However, coming to the point of sentence, a perusal of the compromise arrived at between the petitioners and the complainant's side shows that the parties have fully patched up the matter between themselves with the intervention of the Crl. Misc. No.1636 of 2010 and [ 4 ] Crl. Rev. No. 34 of 2002 respectable persons. Mukhtiar Kaur and Kewal Singh, widow and son of the complainant Mohar Singh respectively, have categorically stated that they have no objection if the petitioners are acquitted. It has further been averred in the compromise document that due to genuine settlement of the dispute, the complainants are no more interested to pursue the case against the petitioners and they have no objection if the FIR and further proceedings arising therefrom against the petitioners are quashed and set aside. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioners have faced the agony of a long and protracted trial for the last more than 13 years and the fact that a compromise has been arrived at between the petitioners Bhagat Singh and Ram Singh and Smt. Mukhtiar Singh and Kewal Singh, widow and son of the complainant respectively, therefore, I am of the considered opinion that it would be in the fitness of things if the accused are sentenced to the period they have already undergone. Resultantly, I uphold the conviction of the petitioners as recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. However, the sentence of the petitioners is reduced to the period they have already undergone. The revision petition is disposed of. 22.1.2010 ( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA ) Rupi JUDGE