Crl. Revision No. 2148 of 2005 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 2148 of 2005 Date of Decision: 28.02.2011. Darshan Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. M.S. Bedi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anil K. Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ranvir Singh Chauhan, DAG, Punjab. for the respondent-State. Mr. Mahil Singh, complainant in person with Mr. D.S.Nigha, Advocate. NAWAB SINGH.J (ORAL) This revision is directed against the judgment dated October 25th, 2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated July 27th, 2002 of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Abohar, whereby, petitioners were convicted under Sections 323, 324 and 325 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months, 1 year and 2 years and to pay file of ` 200/-, ` 300/- and ` 500/- respectively with default stipulation. 2. The occurrence took place on October 20th, 1999 on a trivial dispute of ploughing the passage. In the occurrence, Mahil Singh-complainant received the injuries at the hands of the petitioners. Crl. Revision No. 2148 of 2005 2 .. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties are neighbours and are residing in the same village. They want to live peacefully in future. During the pendency of the revision, parties have compromised the matter. Compromise Deed dated July 22, 2007 (Annexure A/1) has been placed on record. It was petitioners' first offence. They have undergone actual sentence of 2 months and 25 days, per jail custody certificate filed by the State counsel. 4. Indeed, offence under Section 324 IPC was compoundable under the Code of Criminal Procedure as it stood in 1999. 5. In Md. Abdul Sufan Laskar & Ors. Vs. State of Assam, 2008 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 115, the offence was committed in the year 1995. Accused were convicted under Section 324 IPC by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Their conviction was confirmed by the Sessions Judge and also by the High Court. During the pendency of the appeal before the Hon`ble Supreme Court, parties entered into compromise. Taking into consideration that the parties had compromised the matter, the compounding was permitted and the accused were acquitted of the charges. 6. Indisputably, the petitioners and the complainant are residents of the same village. With the intervention of the village panchayat and respectables, the complainant has compounded the offence with the petitioners and now he has no grievance against them. Mahil Singh - complainant has also filed affidavit dated July 26th, 2007 (Annexure A/2) to the same effect. 7. This Court is satisfied that the complainant has voluntarily desired to compound the offence with the petitioners for sufficient and genuine reasons stated in the compromise deed and affidavit filed by him and such compounding is legal and valid. This Court allows the parties to compound the offence under Section 324 IPC. 8. In view of above, the conviction and sentence of Crl. Revision No. 2148 of 2005 3 .. the petitioners is set aside and they are ordered to be acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 9. The revision petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE February 28th, 2011. som