Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajesh Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 4 April, 2024
Author: Karamjit Singh
Bench: Karamjit Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045950
CRR-3458-2019 (O&M) [1] 2024:PHHC:045950
239
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR-3458-2019 (O&M)
Date of decision: 04.04.2024
Rajesh Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Inderjeet Singh, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Dhanpat Rai Singla, Advocate for respondent No.2.
****
KARAMJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/
accused seeking setting aside of judgment dated 10.12.2019 passed by the
Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda whereby the appeal filed by
petitioner against judgment and order dated 12.03.2018 passed by the Court
of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Talwandi Sabo, whereby petitioner was
convicted and sentenced to RI for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-
and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for two months,
under Section 406 IPC, was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that complainant Baljinder
Singh reported to the police that petitioner was doing tangerine business
with the complainant and petitioner used to take supply of tangerine from
the complainant for sale in different markets. The petitioner took six
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045950
CRR-3458-2019 (O&M) [2] 2024:PHHC:045950
thousands crates of plastic each weighing two kg but thereafter failed to
return the same and the value of the said crates was Rs.15 lacs. That
petitioner also misappropriated another amount of Rs.10 lacs being costs of
tangerines supplied by complainant to the petitioner. Consequently, FIR
No.154 dated 17.11.2013 under Section 406 IPC was registered against the
petitioner.
3. On completion of trial, the petitioner was convicted and
sentenced as is detailed above vide, judgment and order dated 12.03.2018
by the learned trial Court. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed appeal which
was also dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda
vide judgment dated 10.12.2019. Still being not satisfied petitioner filed the
present revision petition.
4. During the pendency of the revision petition, the parties
effected compromise. Application was filed by counsel for the petitioner
under Section 320 Cr.P.C. seeking permission to compound the offence
punishable under Section 406 IPC. The application was supported by
compromise deed Annexure A-1 as per which the entire settled amount
worth Rs.5 lacs is paid by the petitioner to the complainant. Today, counsel
appearing on behalf of complainant/respondent No.2 has admitted the
factum of compromise and endorsed the contents of compromise deed
Annexure A-1. The counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2 further
made statement that complainant is having no objection if offence under
Section 406 IPC is compounded and the petitioner is acquitted in the present
case. The original compromise deed is taken on record.
5. In the light of the above, it stands proved that the matter has
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045950
CRR-3458-2019 (O&M) [3] 2024:PHHC:045950
been compromised between the parties and as such the parties are permitted
to compound the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC in aforesaid
criminal case having FIR No.154 dated 17.11.2013 under Section 406 IPC,
Police Station Maur. Consequently, the petitioner deserves to be acquitted
of the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the present petition is allowed and
petitioner is acquitted of an offence punishable under Section 406 IPC, as
the offence under Section 406 IPC stands compounded.
7. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
04.04.2024 (KARAMJIT SINGH)
Yogesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
3 of 3
