Crl. Misc.No. M- 12679 of 2011 - 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc.No. M- 12679 of 2011 Date of decision : 10.05.2011 Amrik Singh and others ......Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. H.S. Batth, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Munish Kumar, AAG, Punjab for respondent No. 1 Ms. Maninder Kaur, Advocate for the complainant/respondent No. 2 **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for compounding the offences under Sections 326, 325, 323, 148, 452 and 354 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code in complaint no.9 dated 01.02.2007 and for setting aside the judgment of conviction passed against the petitioners, on the basis of compromise . On 03.12.2000 a complaint had been moved by the complainant in the Police Station wherein it has been alleged that accused Amrik Singh, Mukhtar Singh, Ranjit Kaur and Kiran, who were armed with Dang, Jagar Singh, who was armed with Kirpan whereas Mohinder Kaur with empty handed alongwith some unknown persons tress-passed the house of Crl. Misc.No. M- 12679 of 2011 - 2- Sawinder Kaur, complainant and attacked on her with their respective weapons. The daughter of the complainant, who was present at the scene of occurrence, when stopped, her modesty was outraged by the accused. The victims raised hue and cry. The occurrence was witnessed by Sukhraj and Kabla Singh. The complainant was taken to the hospital for treatment. But no action has been taken by the police. The present petitioners were summoned to face trial and vide order dated 20.09.2007 rendered by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patti, they were convicted and sentenced under Sections 148, 452, 326, 325, 323 and 354 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal against the judgment of the trial Court is pending before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran. During pendency of appeal, the parties have entered into compromise (Annexure P- 3) . Respondent no.2 has put in appearance. The original compromise and affidavit of the complainant have been taken on record as Annexures A-1 and A-2. As per the compromise, both the parties have agreed that they have no grudge or enmity against each other and do not want to pursue the proceedings further and in case the petitioners are acquitted, the complainant has no objection. It was also agreed in between the parties that they will remain bound by the terms and conditions mentioned in the compromise deed. Both the parties have further undertaken not to file any Civil or Criminal case against each other regarding the above said incident. Crl. Misc.No. M- 12679 of 2011 - 3- As per Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 (P&H) has held that the Court has wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 Cr.P.C. in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice. In a similar situated case, where the accused were convicted and during the pendency of the appeal, the parties had compromised the matter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Khursheed and another versus State of U.P. and another 2007(4) RCR (Criminal) 495 granted permission to compound the offence under Section 325 IPC. In view of the settled proposition of law and in view of the fact that the parties have compromised the matter, there is no impediment to grant permission to the parties to compound the offences. Accordingly, the parties are allowed to compound the offences under Sections 326 and 452 IPC. As such the present petition is partly allowed and the petitioners are directed to appear before the Appellate Court where the appeal is pending, who shall pass an appropriate order in the light of permission having granted by this Court to the parties to compound the offences. The criminal miscellaneous petition is partly allowed. May 10, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) dinesh JUDGE