Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mahesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 18 September, 2024
Author: Kirti Singh
Bench: Kirti Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.254-2
CRR-606-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision : 18.09.2024
Mahesh Kumar ..... Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present: Mr. J.S. Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Brijesh Sharma, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. G.S. Aulakh, Advocate, for the complainant.
*****
KIRTI SINGH, J. (Oral)
Present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
against the judgment dated 11.03.2024 passed by the Court of Sessions
Judge, Sirsa whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the
judgment and order dated 28/30.08.2018 passed by the Court of Sub
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dabwali whereby the petitioner and other
co-accused were convicted and sentenced as follows, was dismissed:-
Section(s) of Sentence Fine I/D of payment of fine
I.P.C
148 RI for 02 years Rs.1000/- --
323 read with RI for 01 year -- --
324 read with RI for 02 years -- --
325 read with RI for 03 years -- --
326 read with RI for 03 years Rs.10,000/- RI for 06 months
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124530
2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that during the pendency of the present revision petition, the parties have
amicably settled the dispute and in this case, there were 03 victims
including the complainant-Butta Singh and one of the victim namely
Jagar Singh has died. He further prays that in view of the settlement, the
sentence of the petitioner may be reduced to the period already
undergone.
3. The factum of compromise between the parties has not been
disputed by counsel for the complainant and he has fairly acceded to the
request of reduction in the quantum of sentence of the petitioner.
4. A perusal of record shows that the petitioner and the
complainant have compromised the matter. The FIR in question stood
registered on 12.08.2006 and thereafter, the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence was passed on 28/30.08.2018 and his
appeal was decided on 11.03.2024 by the learned First Appellate Court.
During the pendency of present revision petition, he was released on
interim bail vide order dated 31.05.2024.
5. The parties having settled their disputes so as to maintain
peace and harmony and also for the betterment and safety of their
generations to come, no useful purpose would be served by proceeding
further with the criminal proceedings. In the light of above developments,
no cause remains for this Court to invest further time and effort in
adjudicating this revision petition on merits.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124530
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shakuntla Sawhney Vs.
Kaushalya and others (1980) 1 SCC 63 has observed as under:
"4. ....The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when
parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a
sense of fellowship or reunion....."
7. Keeping in view the fact that one of the objectives of the
criminal jurisprudence is to reform a convict and also the fact that the
petitioner has amicably settled the matter with the complainant and taking
into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the
petitioner has been adequately punished and it would not be unjustified to
invoke the inherent powers vested to this court to secure the ends of
justice.
8. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction dated
28.08.2018 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dabwali
and as upheld by the Court of Sessions Judge, Sirsa vide impugned
judgment dated 11.03.2024, is maintained. So far as order of sentence is
concerned, the sentence of the petitioner reduced to the period already
undergone by him.
9. With the above modification in the order of sentence, instant
revision petition is hereby disposed of.
10. A copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court for
compliance.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124530
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
(KIRTI SINGH)
JUDGE
18.09.2024
Ramandeep Singh
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
