IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Revision No. 261 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 24.2.2010 Jaswant Singh and others ......Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Ms.G.K.Mann, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms.Bhavna Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr.Kushaldeep Singh Sandhu, Avocate, for complainant. **** ORDER The present revision petition has been filed against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.1.2006 passed by the trial Court and judgment dated 22.1.2010 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court were upheld. FIR No.223 dated 7.11.1997 under Sections 324/325/452/148/149 IPC was registered at Police Station Sadar Gurdaspur on the basis of statement made by the complainant. The accused were tried and were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court. The accused-petitioners filed appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge which was dismissed and the judgment of trial Court was upheld. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners- accused on the ground that the case of the prosecution has not been supported even by injured witness Avtar Singh and the doctor who x-rayed injured-Sukhwinder Singh has also not come forward for his cross- examination. Dalbir Singh who was an eye-witness, was not examined by Crl.Revision No. 261 of 2010 [2] the prosecution. Ms.G..K.Mann, learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that none of the prosecution witnesses has supported the case of the prosecution and the ocular evidence has not been corroborated by medical evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manoj and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2008(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 552 and judgment of this Court in Maya Ram and others v. State of Haryana 2005(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 596 to support her contention. In Maya Ram's case (supra) the accused who were convicted by the trial Court under Sections 325/326/323 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years were granted the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. Learned counsel for the complainant has also submitted copies of affidavits filed by the injured by stating that they have settled the matter between the parties and they do not have any objection if the accused-petitioners are acquitted. The affidavits of the complaint are placed on record. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the judgments of the lower courts and other documents available on the file. Learned counsel for the complainant has stated at the Bar that the complainant-injured have compromised with the accused-petitioners and in view of the compromise, their revisions petition be accepted. Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with compounding of offences. Section 320(1) Cr.P.C. provides that the Crl.Revision No. 261 of 2010 [3] offences punishable under the Sections of Indian Penal Code specified in the first two columns of the Table next following may be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of that Table. Under sub- Section (2) of Section 320, offences punishable under the Sections of the Indian Penal Code, specified in the first two columns of the Table next following may, with the permission of the Court before which any prosecution for such offence is pending, be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of that Table. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means by the accused constitutes an offence under Section 324 IPC which can be compounded by person to whom hurt is caused with the permission of the Court in terms of Sub-Section (2) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. The petitioners and the complainant-injured are residents of the same village and with the intervention of respectables of the village the complainant has compromised the matter with the petitioners and now they have no grievance against them. Offence under Section 324 IPC is compounded. The matter has been compromised between the parties and complainant-injured have no objection in allowing acquittal of the accused- petitioners. It has been observed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney (1980)1 SCC 63 that “the finest Hour of Justice arrives propitiously when the parties, despite following apart bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion.” Relying on the views adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Five Judges Bench of this Court also observed in Kulwinder Singh v. Crl.Revision No. 261 of 2010 [4] State of Punjab 2007(3) R.C.R. (Cri) 1052 that compounding of offence which are not compoundable under Section 320(9) Cr.P.C., offence non- compoundable but parties entering into compromise, High Court has the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non- compoundable offences and quash the prosecution where the High Court felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. For the reasons recorded above, the present revision petition is allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by both the Courts below are set aside. The petitioners are acquitted of the charge. The petitioners are in custody. They be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE February 24, 2010. raghav