1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 13549-M of 2009 Date of Decision: 23.7.2009 *** Hari Singh & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. R.A. Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate for the complainant/ respondent No.2. Mr. S.S. Mor, Sr. DAG Haryana. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The present petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code is for quashing of Complaint No.143 of 1998 filed by respondent No.2 wherein the petitioners have been convicted under Sections 323, 452, 506, 148 and 149 IPC vide judgment dated 30.10.2007 and have been substantively sentenced to a period of three years and fine totaling to Rs.1500/- each was also imposed. Against the judgment of the learned trial court, the petitioners preferred an appeal and the said appeal is now stated to be pending before the Court of Sessions. Now during the pendency of the appeal of the petitioners before the appellate court, the parties have entered into a settlement and the present petition has been filed for quashing of the impugned complaint on the basis of said compromise dated 1.5.2009. According to the compromise Annexure P-3, the parties have amicably entered into a settlement with the intervention of respectable of the locality and the complainant has no objection if the petitioner are acquitted by acceptance of their appeal. The complainant has also sworn an 2 affidavit, thereby she has authenticated the compromise entered between her and the petitioners. In the case of Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya and others 1980(1) SCC 63, the Hon'ble Apex Court while summing up the essence of compromise has observed that “ The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion.” Even the Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Kulvinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, while discussing the scope of quashing of prosecution on the basis of compromise, by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even in non-compoundable offence(s) has held that the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice. However, in the cases of Hasi Mohan Barman & Anr. Vs. State of Assam & Anr. 2008(1) RCR (Criminal) 70 and Ishwar Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2009(1) RCR (Criminal) 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that where the parties are compounding the offence, which was not compoundable the findings of acquittal cannot be recorded in favour of the accused and the permission to compound could not be ordered by ignoring the statutory provision, but the factum of compromise could be taken into consideration for reducing the sentence. Thus, in the light of the law discussed above coupled with the fact that compromise has been effected between the parties, the instant petition is disposed of with a direction to the parties to appear before the Appellate Court on 20.8.2009, who shall pass an order in the pending appeal of the petitioners, in view of the legal position enumerated above. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE July 23, 2009 Jiten