Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amrit Lal And Others vs State Of Haryana on 19 January, 2012
CRA 704 SB 2006 and another 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
--
Date of decision: 19.01.2012
CRM 59217 of 2011 in
CRA No. 704 SB of 2006
Amrit Lal and others ........ Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana .......Respondent)
CRM 69150 of 2011 in
CRA 787 SB of 2006
Rattan Lal and others .....Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana .....Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
-.-
Present: Mr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate
for the Appellants in CRA S 704 SB of 2006 for the
respondents 2 to 4 in CRA 787 SB of 2006)
Mr. A S Sullar, Advocate
for the Appellant in CRA 787 SB of 2006 and for the
complainant in CRA 704 SB of 2006)
Mr. J S Rattu, DAG, Haryana
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in
the Digest?
Nirmaljit Kaur, J.
Prayer in both the applications CRM 59217 of 2011 in 69150 of 2011, is for listing of the main appeal on some early date as both the CRA 704 SB 2006 and another 2 parties have amicably resolved their dispute.
Learned counsel for the parties agree that both the appeals be taken up for hearing today, itself.
Ordered accordingly Main case Both the aforesaid appeals shall stand dispose of by this common order as these appeals have been arisen out of the same incident i.e. FIR No. 177 dated 19.08.2002 under Sections 307, 325, 324, 506, 148, 149 IPC, PS City Dabwali.
In CRA 704 SB of 2006, vide judgment dated 31.03.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, appellants Amrit Lal, Ajay Kumar and Surender were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- each under Sections 307/34 of Indian Penal Code, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each under Sections 325/34 IPC, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months and further sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each under Sections 506/34 IPC, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month and to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of 250 each under Sections 323/34 IPC, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Thereafter, the appellants preferred present appeal in this Court CRA 704 SB 2006 and another 3 against their conviction which stood admitted and during the pendency of the appeal, the sentence of all the appellants were suspended by this Court. However, during the pendency of the appeal, the matter has been amicably resolved by the parties.
On the other side i.e. side of the complainant Rattan Lal, Roop Chand, Suresh Kumar and Mintu were also tried for offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 325, 34 IPC in the cross case and were convicted and sentenced by Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each under Sections 326/34 of IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.250/- each under Sections 324/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month, and to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each under Sections 323/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days. They too filed their appeal (CRA 787SB 2006) against the conviction dated 31.03.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, which also stand admitted. The compromise between the parties has been placed on record vide CRM 69151 of 2011 in CRA No. 787 SB of 2006.
At the outset, learned counsel did not argue on merits but submitted that since the matter has been compromised, the judgments passed by the Courts below be set aside and they be acquitted.
The matter has been compromised. Compromise deed dated CRA 704 SB 2006 and another 4 20.10.2011 (P1) has been placed on record vide CRM Nos. 58217 and 69150 of 2011.
This Court in the case of Parambir Singh Gill v. Malkiat Kaur reported as 2010 (1) RCR (Criminal) 256 quashed the proceedings against one of the accused on the basis of compromise, whereas, proceedings against the other co-accused were allowed to continue.
The Apex Court in the case of Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another reported as 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 910, while quashing the FIR and all proceedings arising out of the same held that the continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. In that case also, the petitioners were convicted under Section 498-A IPC and were sentenced to imprisonment of 18 months. An appeal was filed against the conviction order and during the pendency of the appeal, the parties had settled their differences. However, they filed petition before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of the complaint as well as conviction order on account of the compromise. The High Court dismissed the same. Aggrieved, they challenged the same before the Apex Court. The Apex Court accepted the compromise and quashed the FIR and all the proceedings arising out of the same, as well as order of conviction.
This Court in the case of Sukhwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2008 (3) RCR (Criminal) 991, while relying upon the judgment of Khursheed and another v. State of U.P. and another, 2007 (4) RCR (Criminal) 495 allowed the petitioners to compound the offence under Section 452 IPC during the pendency of the appeal. CRA 704 SB 2006 and another 5
The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another-2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has observed as under:-
"The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduced friction, then it truly is finest hour of justice. Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the court exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rules to prescribe the exercise of such power."
The case of the parties here is on better footing. Both the parties are from same clan. Both the parties are sons of real brothers. However, since the appellants in Appeal No. 704 SB 2006 having been convicted for serious offence, their acquittal on the basis of compromise is against the public policy. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 31.03.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa is upheld. However, taking into account the fact that the appellants are from the same clan, sons of real brothers and that they are facing the agony of protracted trial since 2002, as also they have already undergone one year out of the total sentence of five years, the sentence of the appellants (CRA 704 SB of 2006) is reduced to that of as having already undergone.
With respect to CRA No. 787 SB of 2006, the sentence CRA 704 SB 2006 and another 6 awarded to the appellants is for two years for an offence punishable under Section 326/345 IPC. In view of the same reasons as in CRA 704 SB of 2006, the judgment dated 31.03.2006 passed by the additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, convicting the appellants is upheld. However, they shall be released on probation under Section 4 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on their furnishing a bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court for keeping peace and good behaviour for the remaining period of sentence. The necessary probation bonds be furnished within a period of two months from today.
Thus, the present appeals are dismissed except for the modification in the sentence as above.
Copy of the order be placed on the connected file.
(Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 19.01.2012 mohan