IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1939 of 2006 Date of decision: 5th December, 2011 Naresh Kumar and another … Petitioners Versus State of Haryana … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Ajit Sihag, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Anupam Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Petitioners-Naresh Kumar and Ravinder Kumar were nominated as accused in a case FIR No.553 dated 18.11.1997 registered at Police Station city Hansi under Sections 452, 323 and 34 IPC. They were tried by the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hansi, which vide its impugned judgment dated 20th August, 2003 held them guilty of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 452 read with Section 34 IPC and vide a separate order of even date sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven days. They were further sentenced under Section 452 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- each, in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Criminal Revision No.1939 of 2006 Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner had filed an appeal. The appeal was dismissed and conviction recorded and the sentence awarded by the trial Court was upheld. Hence, the present revision petition has been filed. Counsel for the petitioners has stated that as per the prosecution case, petitioners were neighbourers of complainant Usha Rani. Complainant Usha Rani PW-1 has stated that roof of the house of Ravinder Kumar adjoins her house. Accused Naresh Kumar harboured a grievance that Usha Rani had defamed him, so he along with his friend Ravinder Kumar came to the house of complainant Usha Rani and Naresh Kumar gave a Danda (stick) blow on her head, due to which she fell down and suffered injuries on the left buttock. Learned counsel has further stated that Usha Rani had suffered simple injury in the occurrence. Furthermore, counsel has stated that a compromise was arrived at between the parties and thus, he will not assail the conviction of the petitioner. Learned counsel has brought to my attention the following portion of the judgment rendered by the appellate Court below: “15. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that compromise has been arrived at in between the parties so the accused be acquitted or the sentence may be reduced. In support of his arguments he placed reliance upon the opinion of our Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed in Mohd. Rafi vs. State of U.P. 1998(3) CCJ 52 and opinion of our Hon’ble High Court expressed in Sardar Singh and others vs. State of Haryana 1999 (3) CCJ 581. 16. However there is no dispute as far as the opinion expressed by our Hon’ble Supreme Court and our Hon’ble High Court is concerned but the Court cannot acquit the accused if there is any compromise in between 2 Criminal Revision No.1939 of 2006 them. The offence punishable under Section 452 of IPC is not compoundable. Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble High Court are having inherent powers and they can pass any order in the interest of justice, but this Court has to go in accordance with the provisions of law. Moreover, no compromise has been produced before this Court. In the absence of any statement or any type of documents it cannot be presumed that they have compromised.” Counsel for the State has placed on record two separate affidavits of Jaidev Bishnoi, Superintendent, Central Jail, Hisar, according to which both the petitioners, Naresh Kumar and Ravinder Kumar, have undergone actual sentence of 1 month and 25 days each. Taking into consideration sufferance of a protracted trial and the factum of compromise, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioners behind the bars. Accordingly, sentence of the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the amount of compensation deposited, in terms of order dated October 30, 2006 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, be disbursed to the injured Usha Rani. With the observations made above, present petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE December 5, 2011 rps 3