Crl. Revn. No. 212 of 2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Revn. No. 212 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : March 18, 2008. Darshan Singh and another .... Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Robin Dutt, Advocate for the applicant-petitioners. * * * L.N.MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Crl. Misc. No. 12155 of 2008 : Application is allowed and Annexures P-5 to P-8 are taken on record. Main Case : Darshan Singh and Parminder have filed the instant revision petition impugning judgment dated 08.11.2007 of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhri, whereby respondents no.2 to 4 stand acquitted of the charge under Sections 323, 324, 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in FIR No.88 dated 06.05.2006, registered at Police Station Chhappar, District Yamuna Nagar. Occurrence took place on 05.05.2006 regarding which respondent no.2 Satpal Singh @ Rozi lodged FIR. In the same FIR, Arun Crl. Revn. No. 212 of 2008 (O&M) 2 Kumar lodged counter-version against respondents no.2 to 4 by making statement to the police. Both the versions were investigated and reports under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were presented for prosecution of both sides for various offences. In the instant case, respondents no.2 to 4 were tried for the aforesaid offences. Complainant Arun Kumar of this case appeared in the witness box and made statement (Annexure P-2) wherein he inter alia stated that some boys caused him injuries with danda and sticks, but he did not recognize them. He also specifically added that accused persons present in the Court i.e. respondents no.2 to 4 herein did not give him beatings. Arun Kumar was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the prosecution, but he denied the prosecution version. In view of the aforesaid statement of the complainant himself, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor closed the prosecution evidence without examining the remaining witnesses. Since there was no incriminating evidence against the accused persons i.e. respondents no.2 to 4, the learned trial Magistrate vide impugned judgment dated 08.11.2007 acquitted respondents no.2 to 4. Feeling aggrieved, Darshan Singh and Parminder have filed the instant revision petition. Darshan Singh is stated to be eye-witness of the occurrence, whereas Parminder is accused in the cross-case lodged by present respondent no.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners emphasized that the instant case and the cross-case, arising out of the same occurrence, should have been decided together. There is no quarrel with this legal proposition. However, merely because the instant case has been decided earlier, without deciding the cross-case, the impugned judgment cannot be said to have been rendered illegal or without jurisdiction. In this context, it has to be noticed that in the instant case, the complainant himself turned hostile. Had he supported the prosecution case, then the position might have been different. Crl. Revn. No. 212 of 2008 (O&M) 3 However, since there was no incriminating evidence against respondents no.2 to 4 in the instant case, learned trial Magistrate was left with no option but to dispose of the instant case, without simultaneously being able to dispose of the cross-case, in which evidence had not been concluded. The matter may also be examined from another angle. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that Arun Kumar has resiled because he has effected compromise with respondents no.2 to 4. Offences under Sections 323, 324 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code were compoundable. Arun Kumar was the only victim, being the only injured person in the occurrence relating to version of the instant case. He could, therefore, legally compound the offences with respondents no.2 to 4. In this view of the matter also, the impugned judgment cannot be faulted with. In view of the aforesaid, I find that there is no illegality or error of jurisdiction in passing the impugned judgment by the trial court. In fact, that was the only option with the trial court. Accordingly, finding no merit in the instant revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed. March 18, 2008 ( L.N.MITTAL ) monika JUDGE