1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 1975 of 2006(O&M) Date of Decision: 7.10.2009 *** Rajbaljinder Singh & Anr. .. Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab. .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. R.D. Bawa, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. B.R. Vohra, Advocate for complainant and injured namely Dial Singh and Gurmit Singh. Mr. B.S. Sra, Addl. A.G. Punjab *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The instant revision has been filed by petitioners Rajbaljinder Singh and Harminderjit Singh, challenging their conviction and sentence recorded by the Courts below under Sections 323, 325 read with Section 34 IPC. The petitioners and others were tried for the offences under Sections 323, 325, 148, 149 IPC vide case FIR No. 114 of 20.8.99, registered at Police Station Sadar Malour, got registered by Dial Singh on the allegations that they all assaulted the complainant and his son Gurmit Singh. The trial culminated into conviction and sentence of the present petitioners and acquittal in respect of the remaining accused. The petitioners have been awarded rigorous imprisonment for two years and one year respectively under Section 325, 34 IPC. A fine of Rs. 1500/- and Rs.1000/- has also been awarded on respective petitioners under the aforesaid head and in default whereof further imprisonment for six and two months has been provided. For the commission of an offence under Section 323 IPC, the petitioners have been awarded rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of which further rigorous imprisonment for one month was awarded. Their conviction and sentence was maintained by the learned appellate Court below, resulting into filing of the present revision petition. After that, the revision petition was admitted for final hearing 2 and meanwhile the sentence of petitioners was suspended vide order dated 7.11.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioners, with the filing of Crl. Misc. No. 45941 of 2009, has contended that during pendency of the instant revision petition, the parties have amicably settled their dispute and the same will be in the interest of peace and to maintain love and affection between the parties, who are closely related to each other. Compromise (Annexure A-1) along with affidavits of complainant Dial Singh and that of injured Gurmit Singh have been placed on record, containing the recitals that the parties have compromised the matter. Thus, it has been prayed that the permission to compound the offences be granted to the parties and the petitioner be acquitted of the offences. As noticed above, the petitioners have been convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 323, 325 IPC. In the case of Abdul Sattar Vs. State of M.P. AIR 1981 SUPREME COURT 1775 (2), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in somewhat similar situation, while granting permission to compound the offence under Section 325 IPC, acquitted the appellants therein. 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.” In the instant case, the parties have put to end their litigation. They are closely related to each other and have amicably resolved their dispute. There is no impediment to grant permission to the parties to compound the offence. Accordingly, the parties are allowed to compound the offence and the petitioners are acquitted of the charges framed against them. The petition stands disposed in the manner indicated above. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE October 7,2009 Jiten