Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mam Raj And Others vs State Of Haryana ---Respondent on 13 July, 2009
Crl.A.No.317-SB of 1997 1
In the Punjab and Haryana High Court, at Chandigarh.
Crl.A.No.317-SB of 1997 (O&M)
Decided on July 13,2009
Mam Raj and others --- Appellants
vs.
State of Haryana ---Respondent.
AND Crl.A.No.334-SB of 1997 (O&M) Decided on July 13 ,2009 Garji and others -- Appellants vs. State of Haryana --Respondent.
Present: Mr.Manoj Bajaj, Advocate, for the appellants in Crl.Appeal No.317-SB of 1997 and for the complainant in Crl.Appeal No.334-SB of 1997.
Mr.R.S.Sihota,Sr.Advocate, with Mr.B.R.Rana,Advocate,for the appellants in Crl.Appeal No.334-SB of 1997 and for the complainant in Crl.Appeal No. 317-SB of 1997.
Mr.Partap Singh, Sr.DAG, Haryana.
Rakesh Kumar Jain,J: (Oral) This order shall dispose of two appeals bearing Criminal Appeal No.317-SB of 1997 filed by Mam Raj and others Vs. State of Haryana and Criminal appeal No.334-SB of 1997 by Garji and others Vs. State of Haryana as both have arisen out of the cross cases registered by both the parties and also the common orders dated 2.4.1997 and 4.4.1997 passed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge (V) Faridabad.
The occurrence is dated 5.11.1992 in which both the parties were alleged to have suffered injuries. FIR No.226 dated 22.11.1992 was registered under Sections 325/34 of IPC at Police Station, Chhainsa, by Brij Lal, Crl.A.No.317-SB of 1997 2 complainant against Garji, Aasa and Satpal, whereas cross case was registered by Garji complainant vide FIR No. 226 dated 24.11.1992, under Sections, 308, 325 and 149 IPC, at Police Station, Chhainsa against Mamraj etc. In the case registered vide FIR No.226 dated 22.11.1992 registered under Sections 325/34 IPC, learned Addl. Sessions Judge (V) Faridabad, vide his order dated 2.4.1997 convicted all the three accused under Section 325/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.200/. The said accused namely Garji, Aasa and Satpal applied for bail before the learned Addl.Sessions Judge,(V), Faridabad, who were admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.5000/- each with one surety in the like amount. The said accused Garji etc filed the aforesaid Crl.Appeal No.334-SB of 1997, which was admitted on 2.5.1997. Along-with the appeal, they have also filed Crl.Misc. No,.9400 of 1997 which was allowed and it was ordered that they shall furnish bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount and their sentence was suspended during the pendency of the appeal.
The persons who were the complainant in the aforesaid appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No.317-SB of 1997, namely Mamraj, Amar Chand, Prabhu, Bedi, Amar Singh and Brij Lal, were the accused in the cross case which was registered vide FIR No. 226 dated 24.11.1992 registered under Sections 308, 325,149 IPC.
The learned Addl. Session Judge (V), Faridabad, vide his order dated 2.4.1997 found the accused guilty for offences punishable under Section 325/149 of IPC and convicted them accordingly. However, they were acquitted of the charges under Sections 308/149 IPC and vide order dated 4.4.1997 passed on the quantum of sentence, each accused was ordered to undergo R.I. for three years and a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Sections 325/149 IPC.
All the accused on filing an application before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (V), Faridabad, were admitted to bail vide order dated 4.4.1997. Thereafter, they preferred Crl.appeal No.317-SB of 1997 in this Court Crl.A.No.317-SB of 1997 3 which was admitted on 29.4.1997 and interim bail granted by the trial Court was extended till the next date.
On 6.5.1997, their sentence was suspended on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each with a surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad.
Mr.Manoj Bajaj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in Crl. Appeal No. 317-SB of 1997, states at the bar that the parties to the dispute had entered into a compromise dated 13.4.1997 i.e. just after 9 days of the conviction and sentence and have struck to the compromise till today.
Mr.R.S.Sihota, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in Crl.Appeal No.334-SB of 1997 has also supported the averments made by Mr. Manoj Bajaj, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Crl.Appeal No.317-SB of 1997.
` During the pendency of the appeals, an application has been filed in Crl.Appeal No.334-SB of 1997 under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, Cr.P.C) in order to place on record compromise dated 13.4.1997 with a prayer to decide the appeal in the light of compromise. The application is duly supported by an affidavit and and is containing vernacular as well as true translation copy of the compromise. The said application is taken on record . The Registry is directed to put a number on the application.
Similarly, Mr.Manoj Bajaj, learned counsel has filed an affidavit of Vedpal @ Bedi in Crl.Appeal No. 317-SB of 1997 to aver that there is a compromise between the parties dated 13.4.1997. This affidavit is also accompanied by vernacular as well true translation of the compromise entered into between the parties. The said affidavit is also taken on record.
Learned counsel for the parties have argued that both the parties have been convicted by the trial Court under Section 325 with the aid of Section 149 and 34 IPC respectively. It is contended that Section 325 IPC falls in Section 320 (2) Cr.P.C., therefore, they seek permission of the Court for the purpose of compounding the offence. Learned counsel further submitted that Crl.A.No.317-SB of 1997 4 this Court has jurisdiction under Section 320 (5) Cr.P.C. to compound the offence even after conviction and according to Section 320 (8) Cr.P.C., once the matter is compounded, then the resultant effect is acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded.
Learned counsel for the State, however, submits that in view of Section 320 (9) Cr.P.C, no offence shall be compounded except as provided in the Section.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and am of the view that the dispute has already been resolved on 13.4.1997 and since then no untoward incident between the parties has occurred. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney vs. Mrs.Kaushalya Sawhney and others, (1980)1 SCC 63 that the finest hour of justice is the hour of compromise arrives propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hetchet and weave a sense of fellowship reunion". Both the parties are agriculturists by occupation and are of the same village . The occurrence had taken place in the fields . In the case of Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1052, this Court has held that despite Section 320 (9) Cr.P.C, the matter can be resolved by way of compromise.
In the present case, the law itself provides for a compromise as it is provided in Section 320 (2) Cr.P.C.
In the case of Mahesh Chand and another Vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1988 Supreme Court 2111, the Apex Court has even compounded the matter where conviction was under Section 307 IPC, which neither falls under Section 320 (1) nor 320 (2) Cr.P.C. Since the finest hour of justice is the hour of compromise arrives propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hetchet which had occurred due to trivial dispute between the parties, therefore, I allow them to compound the offence In view of the above, since the compromise has been allowed by this Court, the resultant effect is that the orders of conviction and sentence are set aside and all the accused who have been convicted vide order dated Crl.A.No.317-SB of 1997 5 2.4.1997 and sentenced on 4.4.1997 by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge (V), Faridabad, are hereby acquitted. The bail bonds and surety bonds furnished by the appellants are discharged.
Both the appeals are allowed accordingly.
July 13,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge