Crl. Misc. No. M-12566 of 2009 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-12566 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 29.09.2011 Amrik Singh & others .......... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & another ...... Respondents **** CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present : Mr. Harinder Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. G.S. Brar, Asstt. A.G., Punjab. Mr. S.M. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of complaint No. 98 dated 20.9.2004 filed by Lakhwinder Singh-respondent No.2 against the petitioners and some other persons, and for setting aside of the judgment and order of sentence dated 13.9.2008, passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur Lodhi and accepting the appeal preferred by the petitioners, pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala along with the compromise dated 4.3.2009 (Annexure P-4) between the petitioners and Lakhwinder Singh- respondent No.2. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that there were cross-cases filed by the parties. In both these cases the respective accused were convicted and accordingly appeals were preferred by them, which were pending before the Appellate Court. During the pendency of the appeals, with the intervention of the respectables, the matter was compromised and issues between the parties were settled. Two separate compromise both dated 4.3.2009 were entered into. Lakhwinder Singh-complainant/respondent No.2, in the Crl. Misc. No. M-12566 of 2009 -2- present case, entered into a compromise with Amrik Singh, Kartar Singh and Gian Singh copy of which is appended as Annexure P-4, and in the other compromise (Annexure P-5), it was between Amrik Singh on one side and Mohinder Singh son of Ishar Singh, Mohinder Singh son of Roor Singh and Lakhwinder Singh on the other side. Lakhwinder Singh had initiated a complaint under Section 420, 467, 468, 471,120-B, 149 IPC, which ended in conviction of Amrik Singh, Kartar Singh and Gian Singh vide judgment dated 13.9.2008, passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur Lodhi, against which appeal No.54 of 30.9.2008 was pending before the Sessions Judge, Kapurthala on 4.3.2009 i.e. the date of compromise (Annexure P-4). In the said compromise Lakhwinder Singh was on one side and Amrik Singh, Kartar Singh and Gian Singh, were on the other side. It was stated by them that with the intervention of the respectables, the matter has been got compromised and the disputes between the parties have been settled. There being no further grudge between the parties, they did not want to take any action against each other nor do they want to proceed with the appeal further. First party i.e. Lakhwinder Singh (complainant) shall have no objection if the persons, who had preferred the appeal, are acquitted. Another compromise dated 4.03.2009 (Annexure P-5), of which the first party was Amrik Singh, who had lodged the FIR No. 59 dated 8.4.1998 under Sections 148, 323, 324, 325, 342,452 and 379 read with Section 149 IPC against Mohinder Singh son of Ishar Singh, Mohinder Singh son of Roor Singh and Lakhwinder Singh, were the second party. After the trial, Mohinder Singh was convicted by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur Lodhi vide judgment dated 27.4.2004, against which appeal No. 34 dated 22.5.2004 was preferred which was pending before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kapurthala, on the same day i.e. 4.3.2009. This compromise was also similarly worded as compromise Annexure P-4. The compromise was placed on the Crl. Misc. No. M-12566 of 2009 -3- records of the appeal and their statements to that effect were recorded by the Appellate Court. On the basis of the said compromise and the statements, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat. The matter was fixed for pronouncement ultimately on 14.3.2009, when the judgments of conviction were set aside, in view of the compounding of the offence and the appellant namely Mohinder Singh was acquitted. Copy of the order dated 14.3.2009 has been placed on record as Anenxure P-6. When appeal No. 54 preferred by the petitioners was taken up for hearing by the learned Sessions Judge, in the statement given by Lakhwinder Singh dated 13.6.2009 in Court, although, he had admitted the fact that a compromise has been entered into but he made an effort to wriggle out of the compromise by stating that there is another case pending against him under Section 326 IPC, on an FIR got registered by Gian Singh, who is petitioner No.3 in the present case, which was also required to be withdrawn by the complainant on the basis of compromise, which has not been done and, therefore, he would not accept the compromise. The Sessions Judge adjourned the appeal. Faced with this situation, the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed. Counsel for the petitioner on the basis of these facts submit that the compromise is clear and categoric as it is only limited to the appeals pending before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kapurthala, which were preferred by Mohinder Singh son of Roor Singh and appeal No. 54 preferred by the petitioners, which was pending before the Sessions Judge and there is no mention of any other case. The parties are, therefore, bound by the compromise entered into between them, especially when on the basis of the same compromise one of the party to the compromise has availed of the benefit. In case, the said act of respondent No.2 is allowed to hold, the very concept of settlement of disputes in the Lok Adalat and the compromise submitted in Court, which fact is admitted in his statement before the learned Sessions Judge, Crl. Misc. No. M-12566 of 2009 -4- Kapurthala by respondent No.2, would loose its credibility and such acts could not be permitted by the Court. He accordingly, prays for acceptance of the appeal preferred by the petitioners before the learned Sessions Judge by compounding the offences by setting aside the conviction and acquitting them, on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties for compounding of the offences. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the intention of the compromise is to bring the litigation to an end. If that intention is to be given effect to Gian Singh, who had lodged an FIR against respondent No.2, should have in that spirit withdrawn the FIR, on the basis of the compromise, an effort has been made by the counsel to bring that case also within the ambit of compromise in the appeal. Accordingly, he states that in case the petitioner No.3 Gian Singh, now appellant, withdraws the FIR lodged by him under Section 326 IPC, respondent No.2 has no objection to the prayer made in the petition. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. Compromise, which has been entered into between the parties dated 4.3.2009, Annexures P-4 & P-5 are not disputed. As a matter of fact, on an earlier occasion while hearing the present case this Court on 7.5.2009 had passed the following order :- “This is a petition for quashing on the basis of compromise. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Appellate Court on 1.6.2009. The learned Appellate Court shall record a finding whether any valid compromise has been arrived at between the parties. The report of the Appellate Court, in this regard be called for 14.7.2009. Notice of motion be also issued for the date fixed. In the meantime, passing of the final order stands stayed.” In compliance of the said order, the District & Sessions Judge, Crl. Misc. No. M-12566 of 2009 -5- Kapurthala has submitted his report dated 24.6.2009, which is on record, wherein the conclusions are as follows :- “As is elicited and admitted by the parties, the present appeal before this Court, which is an outcome of complaint titled 'Lakhwinder Singh vs. Amrik Singh and others, under Section 420 etc. IPC, the Court of Shri Sandeep Kumar Singla, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur Lodhi through judgment dated 13.09.2008 had convicted the accused and thus, shows that by virtue of this arrangement between the parties the present matter ought to be compromised and settled by complainant Lakhwinder Singh, who has tried to wriggle out of it on the plea that another case filed against him by Gian Singh under Section 326 etc. IPC which is pending for 07.07.2009 before the Court of Ld. S.D.J.M., Sultanpur Lodhi should also be compromised, when the own documents of compromise Ex. C1 to Ex. C3, does not reflect it anywhere, and the compromise, if any, is between Amrik Singh on one hand Mohinder Singh son of Ishar Singh, Mohinder Singh son of Roor Singh, Lakhwinder Singgh son of Bachan Singh, Gian Singh, one of the appellants in this case nowhere figures in this compromise and, who, in his statement before this Court, has taken the stand that he was not bound by the compromise between the others. So, from this overall stand, it clearly establishes that compromise has been validly and genuinely made between Lakhwinder Singh son of Bachan Singh, Mohinder Singh son of Roor Singh, Mohinder Singh son of Ishar Singh and Amrik Singh son of Hazoor Singh, present appellant.” In the light of the above report and on going through the compromise, which has been entered into between the parties (Annexures P-4 & P-5), the contention of the counsel for the respondent and the stand of respondent No.2 cannot be accepted as the compromise is only relating to the appeals which were pending against the order of conviction passed by the trial Court which were initiated by the respective parties. If that be the specific compromise, the same has to be upheld in letter and spirit and has to be given effect when it is admitted that the compromise was entered into between the Crl. Misc. No. M-12566 of 2009 -6- parties without any coercion and undue influence or by playing any fraud. More so when, simultaneously two compromises are entered into by the two parties and one of the parties has availed of and reaped the fruit of the said compromise to their benefit and then resiling or trying to wriggle or back out of the compromise by putting some additional conditions / demands which were not part of the initial compromise. It may be added here that Gian Singh, complainant in FIR registered against Lakhwinder Singh (respondent No.2), was not party to the compromise (Annexure P-5). The position being so, the prayer made in the present petition deserve to be accepted. Accordingly, direction is issued to the Appellate Court where Appeal No. 54 preferred by the petitioners are pending to decide it in same terms as Appeal No.34 preferred by Mohinder Singh stands decided vide order dated 14.03.2009 (Annexure P-6) giving effect to the compromise, which had been entered into between the parties. The judgment of the conviction be set aside in view of the compounding of the offences and the petitioners be acquitted of the charges framed against them. 29.09.2011 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) 'sp' JUDGE