IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2336 of 2002 Date of Decision : January 15, 2010 Bhola Singh and another ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate Mr. P.S. Sidhu, Additional Advocate General, Punjab T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) The petitioners were convicted by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga for offences under Sections 326/325/324/323/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo various terms of imprisonment and to pay fine as well. Al these sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The net result was that the petitioners were required to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, besides paying the various amounts of fine imposed upon them. Against their conviction and sentences, the petitioners filed the appeal, which was decided by Sessions Judge, Faridkot, who maintained their conviction but reduced their sentences of imprisonment to one year. The petitioners are now before this Court by way of revision filed under Section 401 Cr.P.C. Criminal Revision No.2336 of 2002 -2- A perusal of para 14 of the judgment passed by the learned appellate Court would reveal that during the pendency of the appeal, the parties had entered into an amicable settlement between themselves. Though prayer was made for the acquittal of the petitioners yet the same was declined on the ground that the offence under Section 326 IPC was not compoundable and, therefore, the petitioners could not be acquitted. Learned counsel for the petitioners, once again, asserts that in view of the fact that the parties are neighbours and the grievous injuries were on the non-vital parts of the complainant as well as the fact that the parties had already entered into a compromise the sentences of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioners may be reduced to that already undergone. Learned State counsel has not been able to contradict the stand taken on behalf of the petitioners that the matter between the parties stood amicably resolved by way of compromise. The appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by Sessions Judge, Faridkot on 21.11.2002. Thereafter, the petitioners filed the present revision, which was admitted on 21.1.2003 and they were ordered to be released on bail. It is, thus, clear that both the petitioners had spent a period of two months in jail out of the maximum sentence of one year imposed upon them. The matter between the parties stands amicably resolved. All the grievous injuries found on the Criminal Revision No.2336 of 2002 -3- injured were on his non vital parts. The parties are stated to be neighbours. With a view to bringing peace and harmony between them so as to foster good neighbourly relations, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioners behind the bars, once again, to serve their remaining sentences. In view of the above, substantive sentences of imprisonment of the petitioners are reduced to that already undergone by them. However, they shall pay the various amounts of fine imposed upon them, if not already paid. In the event of non-payment of the fine by the petitioners within three months from today, they shall be required to undergo the default sentences. The revision is, accordingly, disposed of. (T.P.S.MANN) January 15, 2010 JUDGE satish