IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No. M-16061 of 2010 Date of decision: 28.9.2010 Deewan Singh and others ......Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr.Sunil Saharan, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.S.S.Mor, Sr.DAG, Haryana. Mr.Pankaj Mehta, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 to 4. **** ORDER The present petition has been filed on behalf of petitioners Deewan Singh, Satnarain, Ramphal and Raghubir alias Kaptan for quashing of FIR No.124 dated 9.6.2000 under Sections 323/324/326/34 IPC registered at Police Station Barwala and all other criminal proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 10.5.2010 annexed as Annexure P-3 with the petition. Notice of motion was issued in the case on 27.5.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that parties have compromised the dispute during the pendency of the appeal before the Sessions Judge, Hisar. The petitioners were convicted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar vide judgment dated 16.12.2009 for offence under Sections 323/324/326 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 months and fine of Rs.250/- each under Section 323/34 IPC and in default of payment of Crl.Misc. No. M-16061 of 2010 [2] fine simple imprisonment for 10 days each. They were sentenced to undergo RI for six months under Section 324 read with section 34 IPC and fine of Rs.250/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days. They were sentenced to undergo RI for one year under Section 326/34 IPC and fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The petitioners filed an appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16/17.12.2009 which is pending before the Court of Sessions Judge, Hisar. The matter has been compromised between the parties due to interversion of the respectables of the village and as both the parties are in close relations and respondents No. 2 to 4 have no objection in quashing of the proceedings. The complainant as well as injured-witnesses have also filed their affidavits in support of the contentions mentioned in the compromise. They have specifically mentioned that they do not want to pursue any litigation against the petitioners. The affidavits of the complainant as well as the injured-witnesses are attached with the petition as Annexure P-4 (colly). Learned counsel for the petitioners also relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Dr.Arvind Barsaul etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2008(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 910 and judgment of this Court in Col.Shamsher Singh v. State of Haryana 2001(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 234 in support of his contention. Learned counsel for the respondents has also admitted Crl.Misc. No. M-16061 of 2010 [3] the factum of compromise between the parties. In this case, FIR No. 124 dated 9.6.2000 under Sections 323/324/326/34 IPC was registered against the accused persons on the basis of medical ruqa sent by the doctor on admission of the injured person in the hospital. Charge was framed against them. The petitioners were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as mentioned above. The petitioners filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Hisar which is still pending there. During the pendency of the appeal, the matter has been compromised between the parties which was reduced into writing on 10.5.2010. The compromise is annexed as Annexure P-3 with the petition wherein respondents No. 2 to 4 have specifically mentioned that they have no grudge against the petitioners and they have no objection in quashing of the said FIR and other proceedings arising therefrom. The injured-respondents No. 3 and 4 have also filed their affidavits by stating that they do not want to pursue any litigation in future against the petitioners. The injured-respondents No. 3 and 4 are present in the Court who have been identified by their counsel. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, it would be in the interest of the parties and to maintain peace in the society. Moreover, there is no legal impediment to grant permission to the parties to compound the offence. In the similar situated case, where the accused were convicted and during the pendency of the appeal, the parties had compromised the matter and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Khursheed and another v. Crl.Misc. No. M-16061 of 2010 [4] State of U.P. And another 2007(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 495 granted permission to compound the offence under Section 325 IPC. Moreover, the scope of quashing of proceedings on the basis of compromise in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are wide and even in non-compoundable offences, the larger Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 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 view of the settled proposition of law and the fact that the parties have compromised the matter, there is no legal impediment to grant permission to the parties to compound the offence. Accordingly the parties are allowed to compound the offence under which they have been convicted and sentenced. Thus, the present petition is allowed and the petitioners are directed to appear before the Appellate Court on 15.10.2010 where the appeal is pending, who shall pass an appropriate order in the light of the permission having been granted to the parties to compound the offence. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE September 28, 2010. raghav