IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 602 of 2009 Date of decision: March 24, 2009 Satbir and others …. Petitioners Versus Ishwar Singh and another ….. Respondents. Present: Dr. Surya Parkash, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ashish K. Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Ajay Singh Ghangas, DAG, Haryana for respondent No.2-State. *** S.S. SARON, J. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 28.2.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, whereby the appeal of the petitioners against the judgment and order dated 4.2.2008 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind has been dismissed and the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has been upheld. Respondent No.1 Ishwar Singh filed a complaint alleging commission of offences under Sections 203, 323, 341, 452, 506, 148, 149, 500 and 392 Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short), on the allegations that on 4.9.1999 when he (Ishwar Singh) was present in his grocery shop, the accused Phool (since deceased) came to his shop in an inebriated condition. He sat down on the wooden bed (thakat) lying outside the shop and started abusing respondent No.1 Ishwar Singh. On this, the Crl. Revision No. 602 of 2009 [2] complainant Ishwar Singh raised protest and asked him to control his language, but he kept on abusing him. The complainant made him to get up from there. He (Phool – since deceased) felt insulted and after giving threats to the complainant went away. At about 7.00 p.m. Kela Devi wife of the complainant Ishwar Singh (respondent No.1) and his son Pardeep also came at the spot. At about 9.00 p.m., the accused in furtherance of their common intention to give beatings to Ishwar Singh (respondent No.1) came at his shop. Phool (since deceased) and Baljit were having ‘jellies’ in their hands. Dani raised a lalkara that Ishwar Singh (respondent No.1) was sitting at his shop and he be taught a lesson. While saying this, Dani gave a ‘lathi’ blow on him. Baljeet (petitioner No.2) also gave a ‘jelly’ blow which hit on the right leg of the wife of respondent No.1. Baljeet (petitioner No.2) gave another ‘jelly’ blow from the lathi side. Phool also gave a ‘lathi’ blow to respondent No.1 which hit his neck and hand. Phool from lathi side gave another blow to Pardeep son of respondent No.1 which hit his left shoulder. Satish (petitioner No.4) and Pirthi (petitioner No.3) gave ‘lathi’ blows to wife and son of respondent No.1 and entered into the shop of respondent No.1 forcibly and illegally. Satish (petitioner No.4) took away Rs.1400/- from the box lying in the shop. Respondent No.1 cried for help on which Rai Singh son of Mussadi, Ajmer son of Puran, Navbharat son of Rai Singh and other neighbours came there and rescued him from the clutches of the said accused. While going, the said accused threatened respondent No.1 to teach him a lesson again. The matter was reported to the police. Respondent No.1, his wife and his son were sent to the Civil Hospital, Jind along with Constable Rajinder Singh. They were medico legally examined but the Police did not take any action against the accused. Therefore, respondent No.1 filed the complaint. The learned trial Magistrate recorded pre-charge evidence and summoned the petitioners for the offences under Sections 323, 452, 500, 506 and Crl. Revision No. 602 of 2009 [3] 148 Read with Section 149 IPC vide order dated 4.11.2000. Thereafter, pre-charge evidence was recorded and the petitioners were charged vide order dated 11.8.2004 alleging the commission of offences under Sections 148, 323 read with Sections 149 and 452 read with Section 149 IPC. After the charge evidence, Ishwar Singh (respondent No.1) appeared as PW1, Nav Bharat appeared as PW2, Dr. B.P. Gupta again appeared as PW2, Kelo Devi appeared as PW3 and Pardeep appeared as PW4. The statements of the petitioners were recorded under Section 313 CrPC, in which they pleaded that they have been falsely implicated. In defence Constable Ramesh Kumar was examined as DW1. The learned trial Magistrate after considering the material and evidence on record convicted the petitioners for the offences under Sections 323 and 452 read with Section 149 IPC. The petitioners were sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offences under Sections 323/149 IPC. Besides, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200 each for the offences under Sections 452 read with Section 149 IPC. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three days. The petitioners aggrieved against the said order preferred an appeal which has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners filed the present revision petition. Notice of motion was issued and Mr. Ashish Kumar Gupta, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1. He has filed an application under Section 482 CrPC for placing on record the compromise deed/affadivt of Ishwar Singh (respondent No.1). It is stated that respondent No.1 is also a resident of Village Dehola, Tehsil and District Jind and being a co-villager, he (complainant) does not want to pursue the present case as his conscious does not permit him to continue with the case and he has settled his dispute in the Panchayat to maintain cordial relations in future as both the parties are residing in Crl. Revision No. 602 of 2009 [4] the same village. It is further stated that in view of the compromise, respondent No.1 intends to get the above mentioned criminal revision petition allowed and intends that the petitioners may be acquitted. The application is supported by an affidavit of respondent No.1. In terms of the statement (Annexure R1), it is stated by respondent No.1 that he had filed a complaint against Satbir Singh (petitioner No.1), Baljeet Singh (petitioner No.2), Pirthi Singh (petitioner No.3)and Satish (petitioner No.4) and others on 11.9.1999, wherein all the abovesaid accused have been convicted and sentenced for one year. Now, he had received summons from this Court and there is a great burden on his conscious. He does not want to pursue this case any more against the petitioners and he wishes that all the four accused persons may be acquitted so that they can look after their children. From the side of the complainant/respondent No.1, this case be deemed as compromised and the petitioners may be acquitted in this case. The complainant/respondent No.1 has executed this compromise on 22.3.2009 in Panchayat without any pressure and at the asking of his conscious. Sh. Ishwar Singh (respondent No.1) is present in Court and is identified by his counsel. He has reiterated in Court today that he does not want to pursue the case and the revision petition be allowed. It is further stated that he has made his statement of his own free will and without any kind of pressure or undue influence. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. As has already been noticed that the petitioners stand convicted for the offences under Sections 323 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 452 read with Section 149 IPC. The offence under Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC is compoundable, whereas the offence under Section 452 read with Section 149 IPC is not compoundable. However, the application that has been filed by respondent No.1 is under Section 482 CrPC. Both the parties are the residents of the same village Dehola, Tehsil and District Jind. Respondent No.1 has submitted an affidavit in which he has deposed Crl. Revision No. 602 of 2009 [5] that he does not want to pursue the present case as his conscious does not permit him to continue with the present case. He wants to live amicably with the petitioners in the village and wants to have no rancour so as to disturb him. A larger Bench of five Judges of this Court in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052 has observed as follows:- “ The power to do complete justice is the very essence of every judicial justice dispensation system. It cannot be diluted by distorted perceptions and is not a slave to anything, except to the caution and circumspection, the standards of which the Court sets before it, in exercise of such plenary and unfettered power inherently vested in it while donning the cloak of compassion to achieve the ends of justice. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320 (9) of the CrPC, or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the CrPC.” Keeping in view the fact that the dispute is between co-villagers and the parties may live in an amicable atmosphere in the village, it would be just and expedient that the revision petition is allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has assured that he shall duly instruct the petitioners to feel sorry to respondent No.1 and that they would hold no rancour against him. In view of the facts and circumstances, the Crl. Revision petition is allowed. The orders dated 5.2.2008 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind and dated 28.2.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Crl. Revision No. 602 of 2009 [6] Judge-1, Jind convicting and sentencing the petitioners shall stand set aside. The petitioners shall be released from custody forthwith if not wanted in any other case. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE March 24, 2009 amit