Crl. Rev. No.413 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No.413 of 2011 Date of Decision: 27.04.2011 Jaspal Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. M.S. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Gurveen H. Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL) This is a revision against the order dated 16.10.2007 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala and the order dated 05.02.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala convicting the petitioner under Section 304-A IPC. It is contended that during the pendency of the above said appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, the matter has been compromised with the intervention of the respectables and relatives and the complainant has also sworn an affidavit that he does not want to prosecute the petitioner any longer and has no objection, if the FIR and subsequent proceedings in pursuance to the said FIR are quashed. The petitioner filed petition for quashing the FIR and conviction order of Crl. Rev. No.413 of 2011 2 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala vide Crl. Misc. No.M-7214 of 2010 which was disposed of and this Court granted liberty to pursue the matter of compromise before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court after taking into account the compromise, reduced the sentence from 1½ years awarded by the trial Court to that of one year under Section 304-A IPC. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner did not contest the case on merits and submitted that taking into account that the matter has been compromised, lenient view be taken and the petitioner be released on probation. Accordingly, the revision against the order dated 16.10.2007 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala and the order dated 05.02.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala convicting the petitioner under Section 304-A IPC for one year is dismissed. The question herein is as to whether the petitioner can be released on probation in the facts of the present case. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, however, submitted that the probation should not be granted in such like cases. Heard. It is not disputed that the matter has been compromised. It is also not disputed that the Crl. Misc. No.M-7214 of 2010 filed by the petitioner was disposed of by this Court with liberty to the petitioner to pursue his application before the Appellate Court on the basis of judgment rendered in the case of Joginder Ram & others vs. State of Punjab & another reported as 2009(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 495. Para 5 of the said judgment reads as under :- “5. Following the same precedent, the petitioners herein are also directed to make a move before the first Appellate Court to bring on record this compromise and the factual position as noticed by way of additional Crl. Rev. No.413 of 2011 3 evidence. The Appellate Court of course would be well advised to take the same into consideration and pass any appropriate order in accordance with law. In case any adverse order is made against the petitioners, they would be at liberty to approach this Court by way of revision etc. and this court would then be in a position to deal with the case by taking this compromise into consideration. Even the first Appellate Court by taking this compromise into consideration would be in a position to grant any reliefs as considered appropriate. The first Appellate Court would also be in a position to decide, if the petitioners need to be sentenced in this case once they have compromised with the complainant. The provisions regarding release on probation would also be available for consideration. Of course, the petitioners would have legal right to approach this court if any adverse order is still made against them. In that event, the Appellate Court can adequately protect them to enable them to approach this court. Precedent, if any, can be seen from the ratio of law laid down in Ramchandra Singh and others vs. State of Bihar and another, (2003) 10 Supreme Court Cases 234. This was a case where the petitioner was convicted for an offence under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC. During the pendency of appeal, parties entered into compromise. On the basis of this compromise, the appellant therein was acquitted of the offence under Section 323 IPC. In this case, the complainant-wife had filed an affidavit clearly stating that she had no wish to pursue the case. She had also re-married by then. Though the conviction under Section 498-A was directed to be maintained, but the sentence of imprisonment (one year in this case) was ordered to be reduced to period already undergone. One of the appellant in this case was also released on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, so as to ensure that his job may not be put to jeopardy.” No doubt that the matter is under Section 304-A IPC. However, it is also a fact that the same has been compromised. Moreover, Crl. Rev. No.413 of 2011 4 the petitioner, in the present case, is facing trial since 11.01.2002 and has also undergone one month of the actual sentence. He is also first offender. There is no reason why he should not be released on probation. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on probation for the remaining period of sentence on the terms and conditions as imposed by the trial Court. The present petition is disposed of with the modification in the sentence as above. Disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 27.04.2011 JUDGE gurpreet