[Cites 32, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajesh Sharma @ Ricky vs State Of Punjab on 29 April, 2026
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRA-S-803-2012 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-803-SB-2012 (O&M)
Rajesh Sharma @ Ricky ...Appellant(s).
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent(s).
AND
CRA-S-682-SB-2012 (O&M)
Janak Dular ...Appellant(s).
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent(s).
Judgment Judgment Operative Part Uploaded on
reserved on pronounced on Pronounced or full
20.04.2026 29.04.2026 Fully pronounced 29.04.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Ms. Anmol Thakur, Advocate
Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate
for the appellant(s) in CRA-S-803-SB-2012.
for respondent/victim in CRA-S-682-SB-2012.
Ms. Rishma Verma, Advocate
for the appellant(s) in CRA-S-682-SB-2012
for respondent/victim in CRA-S-803-SB-2012 (through VC)
Mr. Akshay Kumar, AAG, Punjab.
----
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
27 02.04.2007 GRPS 447, 353, 323, 325, 506/34 IPC
Jalandhar
Case No. Sessions Case No.24 of 2009
ASHWANI KUMAR
2026.04.29 13:21
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CRA-S-803-2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 02.02.2012
Names of convict Rajesh Sharma @ Ricky
Conviction under 332 and 506 IPC
sections
Sentence imposed RI for maximum period of 1½ year along with fine.
(Substantial
sentence)
Cross-version case
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
DDR No.47 15.03.2008 GRPS Jalandhar 324,325, 506 IPC
dt.15.03.2008 in FIR
No.27 dated 2.4.2007
Case No. Sessions Case No.25 of 2009
Date of Decision: 02.02.2012
Names of convict Janak Dular
Conviction under sections 325, 324, 506 IPC
Sentence imposed RI for maximum period of 2 years along with fine.
(Substantial sentence)
1. This order shall dispose of two appeals i.e. CRA-S-803-SB-2012 and CRA-S-682-
SB-2012, as both arise out of the same occurrence and involve common questions of fact
and law. However, for the sake of brevity, facts are being noticed from CRA-S-803-SB-
2012.
2. This appellant-convict(s) had come up before this Court by filing the present
appeal(s) seeking setting aside of their conviction and order of sentence.
3. Vide order dated 29.02.2012 passed in CRA-S-803-SB-2012, the appeal was
admitted and the interim order passed by the trial Court suspending the substantive
sentence of the appellant was extended by this Court till further orders, which continues
till date. Likewise, vide order dated 17.02.2012 passed in CRA-S-682-SB-2012, the appeal
was admitted and the interim order passed by the trial Court suspending the substantive
sentence of the appellant was extended till the next date(s) of hearing. Thereafter, vide
order dated 12.07.2012, the sentence awarded to the appellant was suspended during
pendency of the appeal and further vide order dated 04.09.2012, conviction of the appellant
was also stayed till final disposal of the appeal.
4. During the pendency of the appeals, the appellant-convict(s) filed applications and
prayed for setting aside of judgment(s) of conviction and order(s) of sentence on the basis
of compromise deed dated 21.08.2018.
5. Counsel for the parties also jointly stated before this Court that this is a case of
ASHWANI KUMAR
2026.04.29 13:21
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CRA-S-803-2012 (O&M)
version and cross-version and now, both the parties have compromised the matter with the
each other. Accordingly, vide common order 10.02.2026, the parties were directed to
appear before the concerned Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate for getting their
statements recorded with regard to the compromise so arrived and the concerned Court was
directed to send its report in the prescribed format of this Court.
6. Accordingly, report(s) of the concerned Court has been received, the relevant
extract of which reads as follows:
CRM-3681-2026 in CRA-S-803-SB-2012
Name of the reporting Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.)-cum-JMIC, Jalandhar
Court
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
27 02.04.2007 GRPS 447, 353, 323, 325, 506/34 IPC
Jalandhar
1. Names of the complainant/ victims(s)/ Janak Dular
aggrieved persons(s)
2. Dates on which the statement(s) of the 19.02.2026
complainant/ victims(s)/ aggrieved
persons(s) were recorded
3. Has the identity of the complainant/ Yes
victims(s)/ aggrieved persons(s) been
verified?
4. Whether all the victims/ all the Yes.
aggrieved persons have compromised
the matter?
5. Is there pressure, threat, or coercion No
upon the victim(s)/aggrieved
person(s)/complainant?
6. Names of the accused person(s) Rajesh Kumar @ Ricky and Arun
Kumar
7. Dates on which the statement(s) of the 19.02.2026
accused persons(s) recorded
8. Whether all the accused have Yes
compromised the matter? If no, then the
names of the accused who have
compromised.
9. Whether the court is satisfied with the Yes
genuineness of the compromise?
CRM-3683-2026 in CRA-S-682-SB-2012
Name of the reporting Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.)-cum-JMIC, Jalandhar
Court
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
DDR No.47 15.03.2008 GRPS Jalandhar 324,325, 506 IPC
ASHWANI KUMAR
2026.04.29 13:21
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CRA-S-803-2012 (O&M)
dt.15.03.2008 in FIR
No.27 dated 2.4.2007
1. Names of the complainant/ victims(s)/ Rajesh Sharma @ Ricky
aggrieved persons(s)
2. Dates on which the statement(s) of the 19.02.2026
complainant/ victims(s)/ aggrieved
persons(s) were recorded
3. Has the identity of the complainant/ Yes
victims(s)/ aggrieved persons(s) been
verified?
4. Whether all the victims/ all the Yes.
aggrieved persons have compromised
the matter?
5. Is there pressure, threat, or coercion No
upon the victim(s)/aggrieved
person(s)/complainant?
6. Names of the accused person(s) Janak Dular
7. Dates on which the statement(s) of the 19.02.2026
accused persons(s) recorded
8. Whether all the accused have Yes
compromised the matter? If no, then the
names of the accused who have
compromised.
9. Whether the court is satisfied with the Yes
genuineness of the compromise?
7. The injured-complainants and accused-convicts appeared before the Court of Civil
Judge (Jr. Divn.)-cum-JMIC, Jalandhar and categorically stated that they have voluntarily
entered into compromise and have no objection if the judgments of conviction and orders
of sentence are set aside. Once the parties have buried the hatchet and restored harmony,
continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would only
perpetuate bitterness.
8. It is true that offences under Sections 332 and 324 IPC are not compoundable under
Section 320 CrPC/Section 359 BNSS. However, in peculiar facts and circumstances of the
present case, where parties have amicably resolved the dispute arising out of a private
altercation, this Court can invoke its inherent jurisdiction to secure the ends of justice.
9. Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court in a catena of judgments, have held that
even post-conviction, where parties have genuinely compromised and continuation of
proceedings would be futile, the Court may exercise inherent powers to quash proceedings
or set aside conviction in order to secure complete justice. It would be relevant to refer to
the judicial precedents in which the convictions were set aside based on the compromise.:
a). In Ram Prasad and Another v. State of Uttar Pardesh, Cr.A Nos.
308-309 of 1980, decided on April 21, 1980, Hon'ble Supreme Court
ASHWANI KUMAR
2026.04.29 13:21
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CRA-S-803-2012 (O&M)
converted the conviction from 307 IPC to 324 IPC and after that based on
compromise, accepted the compounding of offence under section 324 IPC
and acquitted the appellants.
b). In Ramji Lal v. State of Haryana, (1983) 1 SCC 368, Hon'ble
Supreme Court, in a matter arising against the conviction under section 325
IPC, held,
[5]. All the offences for which the appellants are convicted
are compoundable and the compromise can be entered into
with the permission of the court. Looking to the chastened
attitude of the accused and the commendable attitude of the
injured complainant, in order to restore harmony in the
society, we accept the compromise. We grant permission to
enter into the compromise and accept the same. We
accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the conviction
and sentence imposed on both the appellants. If they are on
bail, their bail-bonds will be cancelled. If they are in jail,
they will be released from the jail forthwith.
c). In Mohd. Rafi v. State of U.P., 1998(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 455,
Supreme Court, the convict had gone to Hon'ble Supreme Court against his
conviction by the trial Court under Sections 323 and 325 of IPC, which was
upheld by Sessions and High Court. After that, the convict and the victim
entered into an out-of-court compromise. Hon'ble Supreme Court analyzed
the parties' affidavits filed in support of the compromise and observed that
parties had willingly and voluntarily settled the matter. To maintain good
relations, Hon'ble Supreme Court granted permission to them to compound
the said offenses and order the acquittal.
d). In M.D. Balal Mian v. State of Bihar, 2001 AIR (SCW) 5190, out
of three convicts, one was convicted under Section 376 IPC, and the other
two were convicted only under Sections 325 & 323 of IPC. After the High
Court confirmed the conviction and sentence, all three convicts approached
Hon'ble Supreme Court. Although Hon'ble Supreme Court did not find any
scope for granting special leave by the convict challenging his conviction
under section 376 IPC, however, granted the other permission to the other
two convicts to compound the offences under Section 320 (8) of the
Criminal Procedure Code and acquitted both of them.
e). In Khursheed and others v. State of U.P, Appeal (crl.) 1302 of
2007, decided on 28-9-2007, the appellants were convicted by Trial Court
under sections 325, 323 read with 34 IPC. Their appeal against conviction
was dismissed by the Sessions Court and revision petition was also
dismissed by High Court. The convicts approached the Apex Court and
ASHWANI KUMAR
2026.04.29 13:21
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CRA-S-803-2012 (O&M)
Hon'ble Supreme Court held,
[12]. An offence of causing grievous hurt punishable under
Section 325 IPC is covered by sub- section (2) of Section
320 of the Code. It is thus clear that an offence punishable
under Section 325 IPC is also compounded with the
permission of the Court.
[13]. The parties have compounded the offences. As stated
in the compromise deed, Gurfan Ahmad, complainant and
his mother Kulsoom @ Bhoori (injured) did not want any
action against the appellants (accused). The parties are
neighbours, their houses are situated adjacent to each other
and they have been living peacefully for last many years
and there is no dispute among them. It is further stated that
to continue sweet relationship and harmony, complainant
side does not want to take any action against the accused.
A prayer is, therefore, made to accept the compromise.
[14]. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and
considering the Deed of Compromise and having heard
learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, ends of
justice would be met if we grant necessary permission for
compounding an offence punishable under Section 325
read with Section 34 IPC as required by sub-section (2) of
Section 320 of the Code. The offence punishable under
Section 323 IPC has already been compounded by the
parties.
[15]. Sub-section (8) of Section 320 states that the
compounding of offence under the section shall have an
effect of acquittal of the accused with whom the offence
has been compounded. The resultant effect of
compounding of offences would be that the accused should
be acquitted. In other words, once the offences have been
compounded and the requisite permission is granted by the
Court, the accused must be acquitted.
f). In Manoj & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Cr. A No. 1530 of
2008, Hon'ble Supreme Court, based on compromise, accepted the
compounding of the offence under section 324 IPC and acquitted the
appellants.
g). In Md. Abdul Sufan Laskar v. State of Assam, (2008) 9 SCC 333,
based on a compromise, Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the conviction
and sentence under section 324 IPC. Hon'ble Supreme Court took similar
views in Mathura Singh v. State of U.P., 2009(13) SCC 420 and in Gampa
Govindu v. State of Andhra Pradesh thr. Public Prosecutor, 2008(sup) Cri.
L.R. 440: Law Finder Doc Id # 521064.
h). In Hirabhai Jhaverbhai v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 6 SCC 688,
permitting the parties to compromise the conviction under section 324 IPC,
Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, "The injured complainant and two other
injured are permitted to compound the offence punishable under Section 324
ASHWANI KUMAR
2026.04.29 13:21
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CRA-S-803-2012 (O&M)
Indian Penal Code. In view of sub-section (8) of Section 320 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the composition of offence under section 324 Indian
Penal Code shall have the effect of an acquittal of the appellant with whom
the offence has been compounded."
i). In Surat Singh v. State of Uttaranchal (Now Uttarakhand),
2012(12) SCC 772, Hon'ble Supreme Court, based on compromise,
permitted the parties to compound their offences under section 354 and 506
IPC.
j). in Jeetu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2013 11 SCC 489 it is the duty
of the appellate Court to arrive at its own independent conclusion after
examining the material on record. This exercise has however to be
conducted after considering the material on record. There is no power
conferred by the Code either on the appellate Court/revisional Court to
acquit an accused convicted for a commission of a non-compoundable
offence only on the ground that compromise has been entered into between
the convict and the informant/complainant.
k). In Padmalayan v. Sarasan, (2014) 13 SCC 798, Hon'ble Supreme
Court permitted post-conviction compromise for offence under section 324
IPC.
l). In Sathiyamoorthy v. State, 2014(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 867, after
observing that after the compromise they have been staying peacefully in
the village. It is in the interest of both sides to bury the hatchet and lead a
peaceful life, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds,
[6]. Offences under Sections 341 and 325 are
compoundable. In view of the settlement they can be
permitted to be compounded. However, offences under
Sections 148 and 149 of the IPC are not compoundable.
Hence, permission to compound them cannot be granted.
However, since the accused and the victim have entered
into a compromise, we feel that it would be in the interest
of both sides to reduce the sentence awarded to the accused
under Sections 325 and 341 of the IPC to the sentence
already undergone.
[7]. In Ram Lal and anr. v. State of J & K, 2000(1)
R.C.R.(Criminal) 92 : (1999)2 SCC 213 the accused were
convicted for offence under Section 326 of the IPC, which
is non-compoundable. Looking to the fact that the parties
had arrived at a settlement and victim had no grievance, this
Court reduced the sentence for the offence under Section
326 to sentence already undergone by the appellants-
accused. We are inclined to follow similar course.
8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The offences
under Sections 341 and 325 of the IPC, for which the
appellants are convicted, are permitted to be compounded
because they are compoundable. The appellants are
acquitted of the said offences. The appellants are stated to
ASHWANI KUMAR
2026.04.29 13:21
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CRA-S-803-2012 (O&M)
have undergone more than six months imprisonment. So far
as offences under Sections 148 and 149 of the IPC are
concerned, the conviction of the appellants for the said
offences is reduced to the sentence already undergone by
them subject to the appellants paying L 30,000/- as
compensation to victim-Murugesan. Compensation be paid
within three months from the date of this judgment.
m). In Shankar Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh, Cr.A 982 of 2017 Law
Finder Doc Id # 8378562, Hon'ble Supreme Court while permitting post-
conviction compromise, by holding the offence to fall under section 324
IPC, held,
[8]. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case, we see no reasons to refuse permission to the
parties who have compromised the offences which were
compoundable under the Code as it stood in 1998. If it is
so, compounding can be permitted and the appellants-
accused can be acquitted in view of Section 320 (8) of
the Cr.P.C., which expressly enacts that where the
composition of an offence under this section is recorded
by the court, it shall have effect of an acquittal of the
accused with whom the offence has been compounded.
We order accordingly.
n). In Sube Singh v. State of Haryana, 2013:PHHC:026805-DB [Para
17, 21], 2013 (4) RCR (Cri) 102, a Division Bench of this Court holds,
[17]. The magnitude of inherent jurisdiction exercisable
by the High Court under Section 482 Criminal Procedure
Code with a view to prevent the abuse of law or to secure
the ends of justice, however, is wide enough to include
its power to quash the proceedings in relation to not only
the non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar
under Section 320 Criminal Procedure Code but such a
power, in our considered view, is exercisable at any stage
save that there is no express bar and invoking of such
power is fully justified on facts and circumstances of the
case.
[21]. In the light of these peculiar facts and
circumstances where not only the parties but their close
relatives (including daughter and son-in-law of
respondent No. 2) have also supported the amicable
settlement, we are of the considered view that the
negation of the compromise would disharmonize the
relationship and cause a permanent rift amongst the
family members who are living together as a joint family.
Non-acceptance of the compromise would also lead to
denial of complete justice which is the very essence of
our justice delivery system. Since there is no statutory
embargo against invoking of power under Section 482
Criminal Procedure Code after conviction of an accused
by the trial Court and during pendency of appeal against
such conviction, it appears to be a fit case to invoke the
inherent jurisdiction and strike down the proceedings
subject to certain safeguards.
ASHWANI KUMAR
2026.04.29 13:21
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CRA-S-803-2012 (O&M)
o). In Ram Prasad and Another v. State of Uttar Pardesh, Cr.A Nos.
308-309 of 1980, decided on April 21, 1980, Hon'ble Supreme Court
converted the conviction from 307 IPC to 324 IPC and after that based on
compromise, accepted the compounding of offence under section 324 IPC
and acquitted the appellants.
p). In Ramji Lal v. State of Haryana, (1983) 1 SCC 368, Hon'ble
Supreme Court, in a matter arising against the conviction under section 325
IPC, held,
[5]. All the offences for which the appellants are convicted
are compoundable and the compromise can be entered into
with the permission of the court. Looking to the chastened
attitude of the accused and the commendable attitude of the
injured complainant, in order to restore harmony in the
society, we accept the compromise. We grant permission to
enter into the compromise and accept the same. We
accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the conviction
and sentence imposed on both the appellants. If they are on
bail, their bail-bonds will be cancelled. If they are in jail,
they will be released from the jail forthwith.
q). In Mohd. Rafi v. State of U.P., 1998(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 455,
Supreme Court, the convict had gone to Hon'ble Supreme Court against his
conviction by the trial Court under Sections 323 and 325 of IPC, which was
upheld by Sessions and High Court. After that, the convict and the victim
entered into an out-of-court compromise. Hon'ble Supreme Court analyzed
the parties' affidavits filed in support of the compromise and observed that
parties had willingly and voluntarily settled the matter. To maintain good
relations, Hon'ble Supreme Court granted permission to them to compound
the said offenses and order the acquittal.
10. In the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, and keeping in view the
genuine compromise arrived at between the parties, continuation of the proceedings qua
the appellant-convict(s) would serve no useful purpose. Rather, acceptance of the
compromise would promote peace and harmony between the parties. In view of the above,
this is a fit case where this Court should bring the prosecution to an end. Accordingly, the
judgment(s) of conviction and order(s) of sentence qua the convict/appellants are set aside,
and their bail bonds are discharged.
11. Consequently, both the appeals are allowed. The judgments of conviction and
orders of sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar in both the
aforesaid appeals are hereby set aside. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the appellant(s) shall
stand discharged. The appellant(s)-convicts are acquitted of the charges framed against
ASHWANI KUMAR
2026.04.29 13:21
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CRA-S-803-2012 (O&M)
them. The amount of fine, if deposited, shall stand forfeited in favour of the State, as costs
of proceedings. All pending application(s), if any, stand closed.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
April 29, 2026
AK
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
ASHWANI KUMAR
2026.04.29 13:21
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
