Criminal Revision No.1835 of 2008 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No.1835 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.5.2009 Prem Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.J.S.Hooda , Advocate,for the petitioner. Mr.Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana. **** SABINA, J. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 were convicted for an offence under Sections 148, 323, 341 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short) in FIR No.388 dated 11.9.1998 registered at Police Station Sadar Palwal vide judgment dated 13.10.2006 by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Palwal. Vide order dated 14.10.2006, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 148 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 323/149 IPC and simple imprisonment for a period of one month and a fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 341/149 IPC. However, they were acquitted vide judgment dated 27.2.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad. Aggrieved by the same, Prem Singh-complainant has filed the present revision petition. Prosecution case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in Criminal Revision No.1835 of 2008 (O&M) 2 para 2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “The FIR was registered on the basis of statement of Prem Singh son of Dungar Singh. The version alleged by him was that accused had stopped him on 11.9.1998 at about 9.00 a.m. while he was going to Palwal on his scooter, Khacheru accused hit a lathi on his right hand and as a result, he fell on the ground. Satte accused then hit a Ballam on his head, Brahampal accused dealt a blow with his lathi on his back, Chanderbhan accused (since died) gave a lathi blow on his right leg while Omwati accused dealt a blow with lathi on his left foot. Parasram had tried to rescue him but Brahampal accused had even caused a lathi blow on his left leg. Sant Ram and Karambir had subsequently rescued the complainant from the clutches of the accused. It was alleged that a sum of Rs.1500/- had fallen from the pocket of complainant and Khacheru accused had taken away the aid amount while leaving the place of occurrence.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was forced to sign the compromise at the Appellate stage. Learned Appellate Court in para Nos. 9, 14 and 15 of its judgment has observed as under:- “9. An application was moved before this Court on 1/11/2007 for compounding the offences on the ground Criminal Revision No.1835 of 2008 (O&M) 3 that the parties have compromised the matter. Injured Prem Singh was also present on that day and he made a statement before the Court which was duly recorded and reads as under:- “Stated that I had compromised the offence in this case. This compromise has been done voluntarily without any pressure or coercion. I have signed compro9mise deed Ex. C1 which is also signed by the appellants.” The written compromise Ex. C1 as referred to in the said statement was also tendered on record. 14. The matter can be viewed even from different angle. Prem Singh in his application moved for withdrawal of the compromise has averred that the compromise was effected under undue pressure and was obtained by force and misrepresentation. He has not explained as to what kind of undue pressure was exerted upon him and in what manner he was forced and misrepresented. Disclosure of such particulars and necessary and lack of these details thus even otherwise makes out no case warranting withdrawal of the compromise. 15.It will not be out of place to mention here that the accused in respect of the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC were charged for having voluntarily Criminal Revision No.1835 of 2008 (O&M) 4 causing injuries to Parasram besides the complainant. There is no scope for conviction of accused for causing injuries to Parasram because said Parasram had appeared as defence witness during trial and has not indicted the accused for the alleged offence. He has rather deposed that he had sustained injuries by fall from scooter. Respondents No. 2 to 5 were facing criminal proceedings with regard to infliction of simple injuries on the person of the petitioner and Parasram. Offences under Sections 323/341 IPC are compoundable as per Section 320 Cr.P.C. The petitioner had arrived at a compromise with the accused and had stated before the Appellate Court that the compromise had been entered into voluntarily without any pressure or coercion. It has been held by the Appellate Court that while withdrawing from the compromise, the petitioner has failed to specify as to what was the pressure on him, which made him sign the written compromise. So far as other injured Parasram is concerned, he had appeared as a defence witness. In these circumstances, the view taken by the Appellate Court, while acquitting respondents No. 2 to 5 of the charge framed against them calls for no interference. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. Hence, Criminal Revision No.1835 of 2008 (O&M) 5 the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition is merely academic and is disposed of as such. (SABINA) JUDGE May 14, 2009 anita