Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bir Singh And Anr vs State Of Haryana on 30 August, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:112559
CRR No.3785 of 2016
--1--
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR No.3785 of 2016
Reserved on: 09.08.2024
Pronounced on: 30.08.2024
Bir Singh & another ...Petitioner(s)
Vs.
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CRR No.3903 of 2016
Sehaj Ram & another ... Petitioner(s)
Vs.
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Naresh Prabhakar, Advocate
for the petitioner (In CRR No.3785 of 2016).
Mr. Jagjot Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner (In CRR No.3903 of 2016).
Mr. Viney Phogat, D.A.G., Haryana.
Ms. Tanika Goyal, Advocate for
Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate
for respondent no.2.
***
ANOOP CHITKARA J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
426 1.10.2011 Camp Palwal 323, 325, read with Section
34 IPC
Trial Court:
Case No. CHI/0000569/2013.
CRl. Case RBT No.493/2011
Date of Decision: 28.05.2015
Names of accused/ 1. Sehaj Ram;
convict 2. Bir Singh;
3. Savliya;
4. Ravinder @ Bhura
1 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2024 03:05:24 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:112559
CRR No.3785 of 2016
--2--
Conviction under sections 323/326/34 IPC
Sentence imposed RI for maximum period of 3 years and fine of 2,000/-
Appellate Court:
Criminal CRA/144/2015
Appeal(s)
Date of Decision: 17.9.2016
1. This order shall dispose of two revision petitions i.e. CRR Nos.3785 and 3903 of
2016, as the same have arisen out of common FIR and all the petitioners in both revision
petitions have been convicted and sentenced by common judgment of conviction and
order of sentence. However, for brevity, facts have been noticed from CRR-3785-2016.
2. The petitioner-convicts, who were convicted and sentenced, as mentioned above
and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence was affirmed by the Appellate
Court, have come up before this Court by filing the present revision petition(s) seeking
setting aside of his conviction and order of sentence.
3. During the pendency of this revision petition(s), the petitioners-convicts settled the
matter with the complainant/victim and on their joint request, 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 at. As per the report
of the concerned Court, both the parties settled their dispute amicably and the
complainant – Mahender Singh, who is the sole victim/aggrieved person stated that he
has no objection in case the petitioner-convicts are acquitted of the charge levelled
against them and judgment of conviction and order of sentence are set aside.
4. Counsel for the petitioners/convicts as well as complainant-respondent no.2
stated, on instructions, that they have compromised the matter, and counsel for
respondent No.2, on instructions, stated that he would have no objection if based on
compromise, the revision petition is allowed.
5. In the present case, there are four accused who stands convicted and there is only
one complainant/victim, which indicates that the conviction and acquittal would depend
upon the evidence and its appreciation against the sole witness/complainant, who has
already effected a compromise with the petitioners-convicts. In these circumstances, if
this Court does not interject and disrupt criminal proceedings qua the petitioners-convict,
it would, on the face of it, be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which, in
addition to life, also guarantees liberty. A pragmatic approach is whenever a matter is
compromised with of the convicts.
2 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 01-09-2024 03:05:25 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:112559
CRR No.3785 of 2016
–3–
6. In the present case, the offence under section 326 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
is not compoundable under Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
However, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the prosecution qua the
non-compoundable offences can be closed after conviction by setting aside the judgment
of conviction and order of sentence and consequent proceedings, taking into account the
fact that the parties have buried their hatchets, settling the dispute, this Court should also
step forward by closing this continuing cause of bitterness.
7. 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 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.
3 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 01-09-2024 03:05:25 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:112559
CRR No.3785 of 2016
–4–
d). In Parameswari v. Vennila, (2000) 10 SCC 348, the appellants before
Hon’ble Supreme Court had been convicted under Section 494 read with
Section 109 of IPC. After that, they arrived at a settlement with the
complainant, in the presence of panchayatdars of their village, and placed
on record the duly signed compromise, and parties filed a joint application
for permission to compound the offences. While observing that the offence
involved was compoundable with the wife’s consent and permission of the
Court, Hon’ble Supreme Court granted permission to compound the
offence, and resultantly the appellants stood acquitted of the offence for
which they have been held guilty.
e). 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.
f). In Vuyyuru Ramachandra Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2001 AIR
(SCW) 2396, the appellant had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court
against upholding the conviction under section 354 IPC. The victim of
molestation came to terms with the convict and applied to compound the
offence. Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed such application for compounding
and resultantly acquitted the appellant under Section 320 (8) of the
Criminal Procedure Code.
g). In Ramachandra Singh v. State of Bihar, 2003(10) SCC 234, Hon’ble
Supreme Court holds,
[5]. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and
the state and taken into, consideration the fact and
circumstances of the case. In view of the compromise it
appears that grievance, if any, of the complainant
KamleshKumari Devi is over. Indeed in view of the
compromise the accused appellants stand acquitted of the
offence under Section 323 Indian Penal Code. In such
circumstances the sentence passed by the trial Court and
maintained by the High Court deserves to be modified so
4 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 01-09-2024 03:05:25 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:112559
CRR No.3785 of 2016
–5–
far as offence under Section 498A Indian Penal Code is
concerned.
[6]. The appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of
appellant Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 498A Indian Penal
Code is maintained, but the sentence of imprisonment
passed on them for offence under Section 498-A is
reduced to the period already undergone. In so far as
appellant No. 3 is concerned, in our opinion, it will meet
the ends of justice if he is dealt with under Section 4 of the
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and released on
probation of good conduct. The sentence of imprisonment
passed on appellant No. 3 is set aside and it is directed that
he shall be released on his entering into a bond with one
surety in an amount of Rs. 5000/- to appear before the trial
Court and receive sentence on being called upon during a
period of one year and in the meantime to keep the peace
and be of good behaviour.
h). In K. Kandasamy v. K.P.M.V.P. Chandrasekaran, (2005) 4 SCC 349,
based on the compromise, Hon’ble Supreme Court acquitted the
appellants/convicts of the offence under Section 500 Indian Penal Code.
i). 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 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
5 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 01-09-2024 03:05:25 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:112559
CRR No.3785 of 2016
–6–
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.
j). In Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 5 SCC
794, after the conviction under section 498-A IPC, the victim wife and the
convict husband had compromised their disputes and sought setting aside
of conviction based on the compromise. Hon’ble Supreme Court holds as
follows,
[10]. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at
length. The parties have compromised and the complainant
Smt. Sadhna Madnawat categorically submitted that she
does not want to prosecute the appellants. Even otherwise
also, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and
in the interest of justice, in our opinion, continuation of
criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of
law. We, in exercise of our power under Article 142 of the
Constitution, deem it proper to quash the criminal
proceedings pending against the appellants emanating from
the FIR lodged under section 498A Indian Penal Code. The
appeal is accordingly disposed of.
k). 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.
l). 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.
m). In C.Muniappan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2009 13 SCC 790, after the
conviction and sentence under section 302 IPC, the deceased’s family had
compromised the matter with the accused. Rejecting the compromise,
Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that once the parties have settled their
6 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 01-09-2024 03:05:25 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:112559
CRR No.3785 of 2016
–7–
disputes, they could live in peace, but that cannot be a ground to pass a
judgment of acquittal.
n). In Gampa Govindu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Law Finder Doc Id #
521064; 2008(1) OriLR839, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,
[3]. The Trial Court convicted the sole appellant under
Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred
to as “I.P.C.”] and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine
of Rupees one thousand; in default, to undergo further
simple imprisonment for a period of one month. On appeal
being preferred, the Sessions Court confirmed the
conviction and sentence. When the matter was taken to
the High Court in revision, the conviction and sentence
under Section 326 I.P.C. have been set aside and the
appellant has been convicted under Section 324 I.P.C. and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period
of one year. Before this Court, a joint petition of
compromise has been filed wherein it has been stated that
the parties have settled their disputes; as such, they be
permitted to compound the offence. In our view, the
prayer is just and must be granted. Accordingly, the
criminal appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence
awarded against the appellant are set aside, in view of the
compounding.
o). 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 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.”
p). 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.
q). 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
7 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 01-09-2024 03:05:25 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:112559
CRR No.3785 of 2016
–8–
offence only on the ground that compromise has been entered into
between the convict and the informant/complainant.
r). In Dasan v. State of Kerala, 2014:INSC:54 [Para 10], (2014) 12 SCC
666, the Hon’ble Supreme Court converted the conviction from 326 IPC to
325 IPC and, based on compromise, accepted the compounding of the
offence under section 325 IPC and acquitted the appellant.
s). In Padmalayan v. Sarasan, (2014) 13 SCC 798, Hon’ble Supreme
Court permitted post-conviction compromise for offence under section 324
IPC.
t). 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 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.
8 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 01-09-2024 03:05:25 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:112559
CRR No.3785 of 2016
–9–
u). In Deva Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2014:INSC:505 [Para 5], (2014)
13 SCC 275, the appellant was convicted by Trial Court under section 420
IPC. His appeal against conviction was dismissed by the Sessions Court and
revision petition was also dismissed by High Court. The convict approached
the Apex Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court held,
[5]. We are informed that out of two years imprisonment
the appellant has undergone six months imprisonment.
Offence under Section 420 of the IPC is compoundable
with the permission of the court by the person who is
cheated. Since the parties are related to each other and
they have decided to accord a quietus to their disputes and
live peacefully, we permit them to compound the offence.
Hence, the offence under Section 420 of the IPC for which
the appellant was convicted is compounded because it is
compoundable with the permission of the court. The
appellant is acquitted of the said charge.
v). In Ravinder Kaur v. Anil Kumar, 2015:INSC:301, (2015) 8 SCC 286,
Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a matter arising out of conviction, permitted the
compounding of offence under section 494 IPC.
w). 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.
x). 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
9 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 01-09-2024 03:05:25 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:112559
CRR No.3785 of 2016
–10–
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.
8. Counsel for the petitioners-convicts states that petitioners-convicts have already
undergone around 2½ months of sentence out of the total awarded sentence of 3 years
and undertakes to pay the fine, if not already paid. Let the fine be deposited by
16.09.2024.
9. This Court has powers under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to
interfere in this kind of matter. In the entirety of the case and judicial precedents, the
continuation of these proceedings qua the petitioners-convicts will not serve any fruitful
purpose whatsoever. Thus, in view of the compromise, this is a fit case to disrupt the
prosecution. Given the above, judgment of conviction and order of sentence qua the
petitioners/convicts are set aside, and their bail bonds are discharged. However, the
petitioners shall deposit the amount of fine, if not already deposited, by 16.09.2024,
which shall be forfeited to the State.
10. The revision petitions are allowed. All pending application(s), if any, stand closed.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
August 30, 2024
AK
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
10 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2024 03:05:25 :::