Criminal Revision No.2555 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.37658 of 2011 and Criminal Revision No.2555 of 2008 Date of decision:- 18.1.2012 Ram Dev @ Ram Kumar @ Bambi and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Navkiran Singh, Advocate for the applicant-petitioners. Mr. Rajinder Mathur, AAG Punjab. Mr. Vikas Bali, Advocate for the complainant. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR and setting aside of the conviction order passed by the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khanna on 13.5.2006 and upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), (Fast Track Court), Ludhiana dated 19.11.2008 on the basis of compromise (Annexure A-1). The undisputed facts are that Ram Dev-petitioner No.1 was a tenant in the shop of father of complainant Alok Dhir. There was alitigation pending for ejectment of the petitioner from the shop, in which the petitioner and his father were running a tea stall since 25-30 years. On 07.10.1998 there was a verbal altercation between the complainant and petitioner No.1 and due to scuffle between the parties the petitioners attacked the complainant, who received injuries on Criminal Revision No.2555 of 2008 -2- 09.10.1998. The FIR was registered on 02.11.1998. The dispute arose due to litigation arising out of a shop, which has been taken on rent by the petitioners. The petitioners have been convicted by both the Courts as under :- Name of the convict Offence U/S IPC Sentence R.I. Fine Rs. Sentence in default of fine Ram Dev alias Ram Kumar 325 323/34 1 Year 6 Months 500/- 1 Month - Jaspal alias Pala 325 323/34 1 Year 6 Months 500/- 1 Month - Devinder Kumar alias Pappu 325 323/34 1 Year 6 Months 500/- 1 Month - Pardeep Kumar alias Deepa 325 323/34 1 Year 6 Months 500/- 1 Month - During pendency of the criminal revision before this Court the parties have entered into compromise and have amicably settled the dispute. Annexure A1 is the affidavit sworn by the complainant, which is dated 08.7.2011, in which he has stated that all the four accused have amicable settled the dispute. The petitioners have given the shop back to the complainant. The dispute has been settled and the complainant has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed and if the petitioners are acquitted. Counsel appearing for the respondent has no objection with regard to the prayer made by the petitioners and has stated that a valid compromise has been effected between the parties. The complainant is present in the Court and has been duly identified by his counsel. The Supreme Court in Mathura Singh and others versus State of U.P. 2009(2) RCR (Criminal) 859 seized of a case where the accused was convicted under Sections 323 and 324 IPC. Criminal Revision No.2555 of 2008 -3- The conviction was upheld by the High Court. The parties were related to each other and entered into compromise before the Supreme Court. The incident was 25 years old and the Supreme Court had allowed the compounding of offence and set aside the conviction. Applying the ratio of abovesaid judgment to the facts of the present case wherein the dispute arose on account of a shop, which was given on rent to the petitioners. Due to verbal altercation between the complainant and petitioner No.1 the complainant received injuries on 09.10.1998. The incident is 23 years old. The complainant is volunteer to compound the offence with the petitioners for sufficient and genuine reasons as stated in the affidavit (Annexure A-1) dated 08.7.2011. The offence under Sections 323 and 325 IPC is compoundable in terms of Sub Section(2) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. In view of the above, the offence under Sections 323 and 325 IPC is compounded and the conviction and sentence of the petitioners are set aside. Accordingly, the revision petition is disposed of. Ordered accordingly. January 18, 2012 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE