IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. M. No.14397 of 2010 in Crl. R. No.302 of 2003 Date of Decision:11.5.2010 Hari Parsad and others .... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Vivek Goel, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Pradeep Virk, D.A.G. Haryana. Mr. Amit Shiv Rain, Advocate for the complainant. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral) Crl. M. No.14397 of 2010 Heard. The application is allowed and compromise dated 11.3.2010 (Annexure P-1) is taken on record. Crl. R. No.302 of 2003 The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 17.1.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners against the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bahadurgarh, dated 18.3.1999/19.3.1999 whereby the petitioners were convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year under Section 323 IPC; to undergo RI for a period of two years under Section 325 IPC respectively. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The present revision petition has been filed against the judgements and orders of the trial Court and the lower appellate Court. During the pendency of the present revision petition, a compromise has been effected between the parties. The compromise deed dated 11.3.2010 (Annexure P-1) has been placed on record vide Crl. M. No.14397 of 2010. A separate statement of the complainant has also been recorded in the Court Crl. M. No.14397 of 2010 in -2- Crl. R. No.302 of 2003 today stating therein that the matter has been compromised during the pendency of the present revision petition. The said compromise was entered into without without any pressure and out of his own sweet will. He has no objection if the petitioners are acquitted of the charge. He has also clarified in his statement that in the compromise deed dated 11.3.2010, the name of the complainant is mentioned as Sultan Singh in stead of Inder Singh. He has also filed his affidavit to this effect. The Apex Court in the case of Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 2008(2) RCR (Criminl) 910 while quashing the FIR and all proceedings arising out of the same held that the continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. In that case also the petitioners were convicted under Section 498-A IPC and were sentenced to imprisonment of 18 months. An appeal was filed against the conviction order and during the pendency of the appeal, the parties had settled their differences. However, they filed petition before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the complaint as well as conviction order on account of the compromise. The High Court dismissed the same. Aggrieved, they challenged the same before the Apex Court. The Apex Court accepted the compromise and quashed the FIR and all the proceedings arising out of the same, as well as order of conviction. This Court in the case of Sukhwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjan and another, 2008(3) RCR (Criminal) 991 who relying upon the judgment of Khursheed and another v. State of U.P. And another, 2007(4) RCR (Criminal) 495 allowed the petitioners to compound the offence under Section 452 IPC during the pendency of the appeal. The petitioners have been convicted under Sections 323 and 325 IPC. The offences are otherwise compoundable with the permission of the Court. Accordingly, the compromise are accepted and parties are allowed to compound the offence. Accordingly, in view of the compromise having been arrived at between the parties, statement of the complainant recorded separately, the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court vide judgment and order dated 18.3.1999/19.3.1999, which was confirmed by the lower Appellate Crl. M. No.14397 of 2010 in -3- Crl. R. No.302 of 2003 Court vide judgment dated 17.1.2003 is set aside and the petitioners are acquitted of the aforesaid charge. Disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 11.5.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE