Criminal Appeal No.1078-SB of 1999 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Appeal No.1078-SB of 1999 (O&M) Date of Decision:21.04.2008 Jasdev Singh and others .....Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present:- Mr. Rajesh K.Dadwal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Anter Singh Brar, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Sanjeev Mehta, Advocate for the injured and wife of the complainant in person. **** RAJESH BINDAL J. In the appeal which was already admitted, the petitioner has filed the application for compounding of the offence and consequently setting aside of his conviction on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. The appellants were convicted and directed to undergo imprisonment, the detail of which is as under:- S.No. Name Under Section Sentence 1 Jasdev Singh 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 To undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months. 2 Jasdev Singh 307 IPC To undergo RI for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months. 3 Vinod Kumar, Kesar Singh 307, 34 IPC To undergo RI for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months each. 4 Vinod Kumar Kesar Singh and Jasdev Singh 506 IPC To undergo RI for two years. Criminal Appeal No.1078-SB of 1999 (O&M) -2- Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the dispute between the parties has been compromised with the intervention of the well wishers which has been reduced into writing on 16.2.2008. A copy thereof has been placed on record as Annexure A.1 with the application. Compromise has been witnessed by President and Members of the Municipal Council, Bassi Pathana. The submission is that though in the incident, the injuries were suffered by the complainant side but now they were residing peacefully and in future also propose to live in complete harmony. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Mahesh Chand and another v. State of Rajasthan, 1990(3) RCR (Criminal) 332 and judgments of this Court in Rajender Kumar v. State of Haryana, 1998(2) RCR (Criminal) 636; Sukhwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2004(1) RCR (Criminal) 961; a judgment of Kerala High Court in Sabu George and etc. v. Home Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, New Delhi and another, 2007 (4) RCR (Criminal) 386; a judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Raju @ Virendra Singh v. State of M.P., 2001(3) RCR (Criminal) 378. Learned counsel appearing for the injured witnesses and the wife of the complainant, who has since died, admits the factum of compromise and submits that the complainant party does not have any objection in case the conviction of the appellants is set aside, the matter having been compromised. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. The FIR in question was registered on 25.6.1994. The dispute was with regard to possession of the land for which civil litigation was also pending. Though the complainant party suffered injuries, however, time is a great healer. Fourteen years have elapsed ever since the FIR was registered. Since then the parties are living in complete harmony. The appellants have no previous criminal track record and were not involved in any other case thereafter. As regards appellant No.1, additional submission made by learned counsel is that he is a government servant, his two brothers had unfortunately expired and he has to support their families in addition to his own. Compromise in modern society is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. As observed by Krishna Iyer J. in Mrs. Shakuntala Criminal Appeal No.1078-SB of 1999 (O&M) -3- Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others, (1980) 1 S.C.C. 63, the finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion. Resolution of dispute by way of compromise between the two warring groups should be encouraged unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of society or would promote savagery. In Rajender Kumar's case (supra), this Court permitted the parties to compromise and conviction of the appellant therein under Section 307 IPC was set aside. Similar view was expressed by a Bench of Madhya High Court in Raju's case (supra) where also on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties during the pendency of the appeal, the conviction of the appellant therein under Section 307 IPC was set aside. Keeping in view the pronunciation of law and also the facts as mentioned above, in my opinion, it would be in the fitness of things to accept the claim made by the appellants as well as the complainant party for setting aside of conviction of the appellants on the basis of compromise, Though, some of the offences in the present case may not be compoundable, this court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., had permitted compounding the offences which are non-compoundable, keeping in view the fact that the object of criminal jurisprudence is not to punish only but to be reformative as well. The parties should be given chance to repent and reform themselves. In the present case, the occurrence took place in the year 1994. Fourteen years have been passed thereby. The appellants have learnt enough lesson. Accordingly, the parties are permitted to compound the offence subject to deposit of a sum of Rs. 5000/- with the District Legal Services Authorities, Fatehgarh Sahib within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them. The present appeal stands disposed of. April 21, 2008 ( RAJESH BINDAL ) renu/asija JUDGE