IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 1645 of 2005 (O/M). Date of Decision : October 12, 2009. Gurmeet Kaur .............Petitioner(s). Versus. State of Punjab, and others ..... Respondent(s). CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. P.S. Brar, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, A.A.G. Punjab, for respondent-State. Mr. I.S. Mann, Advocate, for respondent No. 2-complainant. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). The present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 13.07.2002, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, vide which the petitioner had been convicted and sentenced under Sections 148, 326, 323, 506 I.P.C. Counsel for the petitioner contends that initially alongwith the petitioner-Gurmeet Kaur, Gurmail Singh, Harjinder Singh, Baghel Singh, and Jagsir Singh alias Jagga were convicted by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, vide order dated 13.07.2002 under Sections 148, 326, 323, 148, 506 I.P.C. On an appeal preferred by all the convicted Crl. Revision No. 1645 of 2005. persons, learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot, vide order dated 18.08.2005, partly allowed the appeal. The amount of fine was ordered to be refunded and ordered the acquittal of Gurmail Singh, Harjinder Singh, Baghel Singh and Jagsir Singh alias Jagga by giving them the benefit of doubt. However, an appeal preferred by the petitioner Gurmeet Kaur was dismissed. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the orders passed by the Courts below . Counsel for the petitioner contends that during the pendency of the present revision petition, a compromise dated 19.03.2009 (Annexure-P- 1) has been entered into between the petitioner and complainant. On the basis of said compromise, he prays for quashing of the F.I.R. before this Court. He further contends that in case this Court is not inclined to grant the said relief, this Court can interfere in the quantum of sentence and grant the petitioner the benefit of sentence already undergone in the light of the fact that a compromise has been entered into between the parties. He relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Pujan and others Versus State of U.P., A.I.R. 1973 Supreme Court, 2418, as also Ishwar Singh Versus State of Madhya Pradesh, 2009 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1. Counsel for the complainant does not dispute the factum of compromise, which has been entered into between the petitioner and complainant. He further states that he does not have any objection, if the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the sentence already undergone by the petitioner. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through records of the case. -2- Crl. Revision No. 1645 of 2005. A compromise has been entered into between the parties during the pendency of the present revision petition. The said compromise dated 19.03.2009 has been placed on record. As per the said compromise, the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties and the complainant has no objection, if the petitioner is even acquitted by this Court. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Pujan and others (supra), has, in para-7 held as follows :- “7. The appellants during the pendency of the appeal were not released on bail and are stated to have already undergone a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of more than four months. As the parties who belong to one family have settled their dispute, it is, in our opinion, not necessary to keep the appellants in jail for a longer period. The major offence for which the appellants have been convicted is no doubt non- compoundable, but the fact of compromise can be taken into account in determining the quantum of sentence. It would, in our opinion, meet the ends of justice if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone provided each of the appellants pay a fine of Rs. 1,500/- in addition to the period of imprisonment already undergone for the offence under Section 326 read with Section 34 I.P.C. In default of payment of fine, each of the appellants shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a total period of one year for the offence under Section 326 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Out of the fine, if realized, Rs. 2,000/- should be paid to Ram Sewak and Rs. 2,000/- to Ram Samujh as compensation. We order accordingly.” Hon'ble the Supreme Court now in the case of Ishwar Singh (supra) again on the basis of the compromise entered into between the -3- Crl. Revision No. 1645 of 2005. parties during the pendency of the appeal before Hon'ble the Supreme Court while considering the same has, in paras 13, 14, and 15, held as follows :- “13. Now, it cannot be gainsaid that an offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. is not a compoundable offence. Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, expressly states that no offence shall be compounded if it is not compoundable under the Code. At the same time, however, while dealing with such matters, this Court may take into account a relevant and important consideration about compromise between the parties for the purpose of reduction of sentence. 14. In Jetha Ram Versus State of Rajasthan, (2006) 9 S.C.C. 255, Murugesan and others Versus Ganapathy Velar, (2001) 10 S.C.C. 504 and Ishwarlal Versus State of M.P., J.T. 1988 (3) S.C. 366 (1), this Court while taking into account the fact of compromise between the parties, reduced sentence imposed on the appellant-accused to already undergone, though the offences were not compoundable. But, it was also stated that in Mahesh Chand Versus State of Rajasthan, 1990 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal), 332; A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 2111, such offence was ordered to be compounded. 15. In our considered opinion, it would not be appropriate to order compounding of an offence not compoundable under the Code ignoring and keeping aside statutory provisions. In our judgment, however, limited submission of the learned counsel for the appellant deserves consideration that while imposing substantive sentence, the factum of compromise between the parties is indeed a relevant circumstance which the Court may keep in mind.” Taking into consideration the above position, Hon'ble the Supreme Court had, in the facts and circumstances of the case, reduced the -4- Crl. Revision No. 1645 of 2005. sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant to the period already undergone. As has been stated above, a fight between the parties had taken place. Both the parties belong to the same village. With the intervention of the respectables of the locality and with the persuasion of the relatives, a compromise has been effected between the parties. The parties have amicably resolved the dispute and are no more interested in pursuing the matter. Therefore, the dispute having come to an end, it would be in the interest of justice that the parties may be left to themselves and it would not be appropriate and necessary to send the petitioners in jail again to complete the sentence, as imposed against them. The compromise, in the modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. If the parties at a given time fall apart, bury their differences and come together with the sense of fellowship and reunion leading to revival of brotherly relationship between them, the interest of justice would be fully served and the Courts should, in furtherance to the interest of society, facilitate such amicable resolution of disputes. If such a compromise enhances the social amity and reduces friction, the same should be encouraged. It does happen at times that with the passage of time when the emotions and tempers are pacified and the reasoning and logic steps in, the parties think rationally over the issue and on such reconsideration with the help of relatives, friends, and well wishers alongwith the respectables of the society, amicable resolution of the dispute comes into effect ending in a compromise between the parties that would amount to enhancement of social amity and goodwill. Such a compromise, therefore, need to be respected and taken into consideration -5- Crl. Revision No. 1645 of 2005. while determining the quantum of sentence as it would be relevant circumstance to be kept in mind while imposing substantive sentence. In the present case, all these feature are found present. In the light of the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Pujan and others (supra) and Ishwar Singh Versus State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), and keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, ends of justice would be duly served, if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone. Ordered accordingly. The present revision petition is allowed to this extent only. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE October 12, 2009. sjks. -6-