Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hardeep Singh vs State Of Punjab on 25 September, 2024
Author: Karamjit Singh
Bench: Karamjit Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127604
CRA-S-1132-SB-2016 &
CRA-S-1197-SB-2016 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-1132-SB-2016 &
CRA-S-1197-SB-2016
Date of decision: 25.09.2024
CRA-S-1132-2016
Hardeep Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
AND
CRA-S-1197-SB-2016
Harpreet Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate for the appellant.
in CRA-S-1132-SB-2016.
Mr. Chandan Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
CRA-S-1197-SB-2016.
Mr. Inderjeet Singh, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Jagatvir Dhindsa, Advocate for the complainant.
****
KARAMJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. This order will dispose of the afore-titled connected criminal
appeals filed by the appellants against the judgment and order dated
08.02.2016 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar
Sahib in a criminal case having FIR No.58 dated 02.07.2009 under Sections
452, 323, 148, 149 IPC, Police Station, Gidderbaha, wherein both the
appellant were convicted as follows, along with two other persons:-
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127604
CRA-S-1132-SB-2016 &
CRA-S-1197-SB-2016 [2]
Sections Sentence Fine
450 IPC RI for 7 years each Fine Rs.25000/- each and in
default of payment of fine
to further undergo RI for
one year each
326 IPC read with Section RI for 7 years each Fine Rs.50000/- each and in
34 IPC default of payment of fine
to further undergo RI for
one year each
323 IPC read with Section RI for 6 months ------
34 IPC
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The allegations in brief are that complainant Rahil Kumar reported
to the police that he is a commission agent and on 01.07.2009 at about 05:30
PM, he and his uncle Baleesh Kumar, his younger brother Sahil Kumar drove
off the trolley after getting it loaded. In the meantime, the cousins of
complainant namely Abhishek and Pankaj also came there. Abhishek was
armed cricket bat and Pankaj was armed with dang. Abhishek gave bat blow on
the back of Sahil and Pankaj gave dang blow on left arm of the complainant.
Then accused Rajesh Kumar @ Nita gave wooden thapa blow but Baleesh
Kumar saved himself. Sunita Rani aunt of complainant, Hardeep Singh and
Harpreet Singh also entered the shop and Sunita threw acid on the complainant.
Hardeep Singh and Harpreet Singh gave kick blows to the complainant. On
hearing the alarm, people gathered there on which the accused persons fled
away from there. The injured were taken to Civil Hospital, Gidderbaha. FIR
was registered. The accused were arrested. On completion of investigation,
challan was presented in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate. Thereafter, the case
was committed to the Court of Sessions.
3. The learned trial Court framed charges under Section 450, 326,
323/34 IPC to which the accused did not plead guilty.
4. During trial, prosecution examined 13 witnesses in all. Thereafter,
statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded. The
accused examined 5 witnesses in their defence.
5. On conclusion of trial, the accused were convicted and sentenced
to imprisonment as is detailed above.
6. Being aggrieved, both the appellants have filed the present
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127604
CRA-S-1132-SB-2016 &
CRA-S-1197-SB-2016 [3]
criminal appeal.
7. During the pendency of the appeal, counsel for the appellant
brought to the notice of this Court that the matter has been compromised
between the parties. The appellants filed separate applications seeking
permission to compound the offences. The said applications were supported by
compromise deed Annexure A-1.
8. Today, complainant Rahil Kumar appeared in the Court and got
recorded his statement to the effect that he has effected compromise with both
the appellants namely Hardeep Singh and Harpreet Singh and he admitted the
compromise deed Annexure A-1. The complainant further stated that he is
having no objection, if the separate appeals filed by Hardeep Singh and
Harpreet Singh are allowed and FIR in question is quashed and both the said
appellants are acquitted of all the offences regarding which they were earlier
convicted by the learned trial Court. The complainant is identified by his
counsel.
8. The counsel for the appellants and counsel for complainant submit
that both the appeals be disposed of in the light of the aforesaid statement made
by the complainant.
9. It is further submitted that the compromise effected between the
parties is genuine and the same is effected without any undue influence or
coercion and that complainant does not want to take any further action against
both the appellants. This Court is of the view that aforesaid compromise is in
the welfare and interest of the parties and will enable the parties to live in an
peaceful and harmonious atmosphere and enjoy their life in a dignified manner.
10. A Division Bench of this Court in Sube Singh and another v.
State of Haryana and another, 2013(4) RCR(Criminal) 102 allowed the
compromise quashing petition and quashed the FIR as well as all the
subsequent proceedings thereof including judgment and order passed by the
Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate whereby the accused persons
were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment and further held that the appeal
preferred by the accused persons against the aforesaid judgment and order has
been rendered infructuous.
11. Recently the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.1393 of
2011 titled as Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh decided on 25.10.2021
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127604
CRA-S-1132-SB-2016 &
CRA-S-1197-SB-2016 [4]
quashed all the proceedings including judgment and order of conviction and
sentence passed by the trial Court against which the appeal was pending in the
High Court, on the basis of the compromise effected between the parties.
12. As the parties have entered into a compromise, no fruitful purpose
would be served by keeping the proceedings between the parties pending in the
Court.
13. Though the offences under Sections 450 and 326 IPC are non
compoundable, having regard to the fact that the incident in the present case took
place in a spur of moment and did not have an impact on the society in general and
having regard to the fact that the dispute between the parties has been settled in an
amicable manner and there is no likelihood of the repetition of such incident and
having regard to the case law referred above coupled with the law laid down by
Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another 2012 (4)
RCR (Criminal) 543 and Five Judges Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh
and others Vs. State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, FIR
No.58 dated 02.07.2009, under Sections 452, 323, 148, 149 IPC, Police Station
Gidderbaha, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, along with all the subsequent proceedings
including the judgment and order dated 08.02.2016 passed by the Court of
Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib are quashed, in the interest of
justice, by exercising inherent power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C/528
of BNSS 2023.
14. Resultantly, both the afore-stated appeals stand disposed of in the
aforesaid terms.
25.09.2024 (KARAMJIT SINGH)
Yogesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
4 of 4
