Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rinku And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 24 January, 2012
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
Crl. Misc. No. M-4712 of 2011 (O&M) [ 1 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-4712 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of Decision: January 24,2012
Rinku and others ........................................... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another ...................... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri
1.To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. Namit Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Raja Sharma, AAG, Haryana
for respondent No.1.
...
RITU BAHRI, J.
Quashing of FIR No. 303 dated 15.9.1999 under Sections 148/149/323/324/326/506 IPC registered at Police Station Model Town, Panipat (Annexure P-1) and judgment of conviction and order of sentence (Annexure P-2) is sought on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-3).
The petitioners have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment as under:-
Under Section Period of sentence 323 IPC RI for 6 months with fine of `100/- Crl. Misc. No. M-4712 of 2011 (O&M) [ 2 ] Under Section Period of sentence 324 IPC RI for 1 year with fine of `200/- 326 IPC RI for 2 years with fine of `300/- 506 IPC RI for 6 months with fine of `100/- 148 IPC RI for 6 months with fine of `100/- and in default of
payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.
All the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.
The FIR was registered on the statement made by the complainant-Mintu that when he was returning back home along with his brother-in-law Rajesh, on the way back Rinku armed with danda, Bansi Lal armed with Gandasi, Karambir armed with Lathi and his wife Sunita armed with brick and Mamta wife of Bansi Lal armed with Brick came there and started beating them and caused various injuries. They were rescued by their cousin Ravi son of Ranbir and sister Meena who reached the spot. In this background, the FIR was registered.
The trial Court vide judgment dated 27.11.2009 convicted all the accused under Sections 148/149/ 323/324/326/506 IPC and vide order dated 30.11.2009 sentenced them.
Thereafter, against the aforesaid judgment of the trial Court, an appeal was filed before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat.
During the pendency of the appeal, an application Crl. Misc. No. M-4712 of 2011 (O&M) [ 3 ] for compounding the offence was filed by the complainant as the parties have entered into a compromise dated 26.4.2010. The application was rejected vide order dated 18.1.2011 on the ground that the offence punishable under Sections 324/326 are not compoundable.
Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the aforesaid FIR (Annexure P-1) and setting aside the order of conviction and sentence (Annexure P-2) on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-3).
In compliance of the order dated 21.2.2011 the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat, has sent his report on 5.5.2011. As per the report, the complainant Mintu @ Bintu has made a statement on 26.4.2011 to the effect that he has compromised the matter with all the accused i.e. Rinku son of Sh. Maha Singh, Sunita wife of Sh. Karambir, Mamta wife of Sh. Bansi Lal, Karambir son of Sh. Maha Singh and and Bansi Lal son of Sh. Maha Singh. Compromise is not under any pressure or coercion. He has given an affidavit dated 26.4.2010 (AnnexureP3) to the same effect which is duly attested by the Notary Public S.P.Sharma. He has no objection if the FIR in the present case is quashed and the conviction of the accused is set aside. They stay in the same Mohalla and would like to live in peace. To the same effect is the statement of all the accused i.e Rinku, Sunita, Mamta, Karambir and Bansi Lal. The compromise has Crl. Misc. No. M-4712 of 2011 (O&M) [ 4 ] been validly executed between the parties.
While exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. this Court accepts the compromise effected between the parties.
The Supreme Court in Mathura Singh and others v. State of U.P. 2009 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 859 had the occasion to consider the case of conviction of an accused under Section 324 IPC. At the stage of appeal, the parties entered into a compromise. Keeping in view that the incident was 25 years old the Supreme Court allowed compounding of offence and set aside the conviction.
In view of the above, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is accepted. FIR No. 303 dated 15.9.1999 under Sections 148/149/323/324/326/506 IPC registered at Police Station Model Town, Panipat (Annexure P-1) and judgment of conviction and order of sentence (Annexure P-2) are set aside. The petitioners stand acquitted of all the charges.
24.1.2012 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE