Crl.M.No.2882-M of 2010 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M.No.2882-M of 2010 Date of Order: 23.11.2010 Sardool Singh and others .....Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Sunil Agnihotri, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate for respondent No.2. JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) Petitioners by filing the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, have prayed for quashing of FIR No.64 dated 6.6.2001 under Sections 435/427/447 IPC, P.S Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur and setting aside the order dated 16.11.2009 passed by learned SDJM, Dasuya holding the petitioners-accused guilty for the offence under Sections 435/427/447 IPC, on the basis of compromise. It is necessary to mention here that the petitioners have not annexed the order whereby they have been sentenced by the learned SDJM, Dasuya. A perusal of paper book reveals that against the conviction order dated 16.11.2009 (P.2), the petitioners filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge and the same is pending and during the pendency of that appeal, it is alleged that the matter has been compromised and on that basis present petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has forcefully argued that the case is covered with the judgment reported as Joginder Ram and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2009 (1) RCR (Crl.) 495. Crl.M.No.2882-M of 2010 #2# After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that the present petition merits dismissal for the reasons recorded below: Admittedly, the petitioner has been convicted vide judgment dated 16.11.2009 by the learned SDJM, Dasuya and obviously they must have been sentenced vide separate order but the counsel for the petitioners has neither placed on record said order nor has he been able to substantiate the factum of sentence from the pleadings of the instant quashing petition. It is also admitted that against the conviction of the petitioners, an appeal is pending. So far as the aforesaid cited judgment is concerned, the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the same was regarding an offence under Section 323 and 498-A IPC, which was a family dispute being personal in nature and for rehabilitation of the husband and wife to lead their life happily but in the present case, petitioners have been convicted under Section 435/427/447 IPC on the allegations that on 20.3.2001, convict-petitioners committed mischief and caused loss and damage to the property of complainant-Chanan Singh by committing criminal tres-pass in the fields and illegally cultivating the standing crop of the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to cite any law in support of his case that in a case after conviction under Sections 435/427/447 IPC, the FIR can be quashed and judgment of conviction can be set aside on the basis of compromise between the parties except in cases of matrimonial dispute. No ground is made out to entertain the petition. Dismissed. November 23, 2010 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE Crl.M.No.2882-M of 2010 #3#