CRR No. 1034 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No. 1034 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.5.2011 Gurmit Singh and others ........ Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Deepak Sabherwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. RPS Sidhu, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Vaneet Soni, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. JORA SINGH, J. Gurmit Singh and others preferred this revision petition to challenge the judgment dated 11.4.2011, rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, in Criminal Appeal No. 40 dated 18.9.2006. By the said judgment, appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 1.9.2006, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur Lodhi, was dismissed. Story, in brief, is that Swaran Singh, filed a private complaint under Sections 323/325/342/347/362/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, on the allegation that he is the resident of village Mohablipur, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala and is an CRR No. 1034 of 2011 (O&M) -2- agriculturist by profession. Sons of his maternal uncle namely Gurmit Singh and Paramjit Singh, are also residing in village Mohablipur and they had taken illegal possession of some part of land of his haveli. There was a dispute amongst the parties in the year 2003. After the wheat crop, he got demarcated his land and took possession of that portion of the land which had been illegally occupied by Gurmit Singh and Paramjit Singh. Kotha was in existence on that very portion. Gurmit Singh and Paramjit Singh, were requested to remove the said kotha but they did not agree. On 16.9.2003, at about 7.30 p.m. complainant was present near the house of Jaswant Singh then Gurmit Singh and Paramjit Singh, were found present there in front of their house. On seeing the complainant, then Lalkara was raised by Jaswant Singh that complainant be taught a lesson because he wanted to get demolished their kotha. Gurmit Singh and Paramjit Singh, caught hold the complainant and gave kick/fist blows. Complainant was dragged to their house where again they gave fist/kick blows. On hearing raula, Surjan Singh and Jarnail Singh, came at the spot and had witnessed the entire occurrence. Ultimately, accused were convicted and sentenced under Sections 323/325/342/34 IPC, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 1.9.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that all the offences punishable under Sections 323/342/34 IPC are compoundable. Parties have effected compromise and this fact is clear from the affidavit of Swaran Singh-complainant/injured. When the offences are compoundable then under Section 320 Cr.P.C. petitioners be acquitted of the charge levelled against them. CRR No. 1034 of 2011 (O&M) -3- Learned State counsel and the learned counsel for the contesting respondent No. 2 states that in view of the compromise, no objection, if the petitioners are acquitted of the charge levelled against them. As per judgment of the trial Court, petitioners were convicted under Sections 323/325/342/34 IPC. Offences punishable under Sections 323/342 IPC are compoundable whereas offence under Section 325 IPC is compundable with the permission of the Court. Under Section 320 Cr.P.C. when the offence is compoundable and parties have effected compromise then accused are to be acquitted. Relevant provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. are reproduced as under: “Section 320 (5) When the accused has been committed for trial or when he has been convicted and an appeal is pending, no composition for the offience shall be allowed without the leave of the Court to which he is committed, or, as the case may be, before which the appeal is to be heard. (6) A High Court or Court of Session acting in the exercise of its powers of revision under Section 401 may allow any person to compound any offence which such person is competent to compound under this section. (8) The composition of an offience under this section shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded.” As per story, only fist/kick blows were given, to the CRR No. 1034 of 2011 (O&M) -4- complainant Swaran Singh. Affidavit of Swaran Singh, is on the file. Parties are related to each other. Complainant/injured effected compromise with the respondent accused In view of the affidavit of petitioner-complainant/injured qua compromise, impugned judgment dated 11.4.2011, is set aside. Respondents are acquitted of the charge levelled against them. May 20, 2011 ( JORA SINGH ) rishu JUDGE