Criminal Revision No.1893 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1893 of 2008 Date of decision:- 10.5.2011 Sukhwinder Singh alias Binder ...Petitioner Versus Jagrup Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Preetwinder Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Munish Kumar, AAG Punjab for respondent No.3-State. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) Initially in the FIR No.90 dated 23.6.2003 registered under Sections 325,323,34 IPC at Police Station Sehna challan had been presented against accused Jagrup Singh. However, subsequently vide order dated 20.5.2005 Harpal Singh was also summoned as accused to face the trial. The allegations against these accused are outcome of the statement made by Sukhwinder Singh before the Sub Inspector Harvinder Singh on 22.6.2003. This FIR is is continuation of the occurrence which took place on 22.6.2003 when accused Jagrup Singh armed with Kasia, Harpal Singh armed with dang came and started abusing the complainant and remarked that why they had dumped earth of their side of the common watt (demarcation line). The complainant opposed them. At this stage both the parties inflicted injuries on each other and they were admitted in hospital and the FIRs were registered. In the present case Dr. Criminal Revision No.1893 of 2008 -2- Suresh kumar, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Barnala examined as PW1, who had medically examined the injured Sukhwinder Singh on 22.6.2003. On the application of police Ex.PD, he gave his opinion Ex.PD/1 regarding fitness of injujred to make statement. As per his opinion injury No.1 is grievous and injuries Nos.2 and 3 are simple in nature. The eye witness Sukhpal Singh (PW3) supported the prosecution version by corroborating his brother PW2> Dr. Narsi Ram, Medical Officer also proved his x-ray report Ex.PB and x-ray film Ex.P1. As per his observation there is fracture of distal phalanx. Both the parties lead their evidence at the trial. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused denied the allegation of prosecution. The trial Court after going through the entire evidence comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case. Both the accused were acquitted of the charges framed against them. The revision filed by the petitioner is pending in this Court, a compromise has been effected. With regard to compromise, an affidavit has been filed by complainant Jagroop Singh. The dispute in this case has arisen out of filling of the earth in the khal (water- course) in the land of Jagroop Singh adjoining to the petitioner. The injuries suffered by the complainant are simple in nature and in view of compromise and affidavit of Jagroop Singh, the compromise effected between the parties is valid and without any pressure or coercion. In view of law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Criminal)1052 and Madan Mohan Abbot versus State of Punjab 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 429, the petitioner is allowed to withdraw this revision petition. May 10, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE