IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-15276 of 2010 Date of decision : 1.7.2010 Pritam Singh and Others …. Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and Others ….. Respondents Present : Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the petitioners. *** S.S. SARON, J. The petitioners side had lodged FIR No.100 dated 14.8.1996 at Police Station Jakhal against respondents No.2 to 4 alleging commission of offences under Sections 323, 324 and 34 Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short). A case of cross-version was registered against the petitioners side by respondents No.2 to 4. The petitioners were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 326 read with Section 34 IPC vide order dated 1.8.2007 and respondents No.2 to 4 were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC vide order dated 31.7.2007. Both the sides, i.e. the petitioners and respondents No.2 to 4 have filed appeals. During the pendency of the appeals, a compromise has been arrived at. On the basis of the compromise, the offences under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC against respondents No.2 to 4 were compounded and they were acquitted vide order dated Crl. Misc. No. M-15276 of 2010 [2] 6.5.2010 (Annexure P2). However, the compounding of offence against the petitioners was declined vide order dated 6.5.2010 (Annexure P1) as the offence under Section 326 IPC was not compoundable. The said order dated 6.5.2010 (Annexure P1) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Fatehabad whereby the compounding has not been allowed, is assailed in this petition. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the record, I find no ground to interfere with the order dated 6.5.2010 (Annexure P1) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Fatehabad as indeed the offence under Section 326 IPC is not compoundable. Therefore, the compounding of offence has rightly been declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The proper course would be that the petitioners may, argue their case before the learned Additional Sessions Judge on merit. However, in case they are found guilty by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the fact that they have compromised the matter, would be taken into account for the purposes of sentencing them. This Court in the case of Joginder Ram and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2009 (1) RCR (Criminal) 495 held that in a case during appeal where parties have entered into a compromise and filed a petition before this Court for quashing the proceedings on the basis of compromise then the parties ought to first approach the Ist Appellate Court, which is competent to grant any relief including release of accused on probation on the basis of compromise. Besides, the petitioners would have a legal right to approach this Court if any adverse order is still made against them. Reliance was placed on the case of Ramchandra Singh and Others v. State of Bihar and another, Crl. Misc. No. M-15276 of 2010 [3] (2003) 10 SCC 234. In the said case, the petitioner therein was convicted for offences under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC. During pendency of the appeal, the parties had entered into a compromise. On the basis of the compromise, the appellant therein was acquitted of the offence under Section 323 IPC. In the said case, the complainant-wife had filed an affidavit clearly stating that she had no wish to pursue the case. Besides, she had also re-married by then. Though the conviction under Section 498-A was directed to be maintained, but the sentence of imprisonment of one year was ordered to be reduced to the period already undergone. One of the appellant therein was also released on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, so as to ensure that his job may not be put to jeopardy. Therefore, in a case of compromise during the pendency of the appeal the proceedings are not normally to be quashed and the fact that the parties have compromised their dispute is a factor which is to be taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing in case a finding of guilt is recorded and the appellants are convicted for the offences attributed to them. In the above-noted circumstances, the Crl. Misc. petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners may pursue their remedies in accordance with law before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Fatehabad where their appeal is pending. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE July 1, 2010 amit