Crl. Rev. No. 2240 of 2018 (OM). -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HARYANA
Crl. Rev. No. 2240 of 2018 (OM)
Date of decision : 19.12.2018
Harinder Singh … Petitioner
State of U.T. Chandigarh Anr.
CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY
Present: Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate with
Ms. Kavya Jariyal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Gautam Kaile, Advocate for
Mr. Rajiv Sharma, APP, U.T., Chandigarh.
for respondent No.1-State.
Mr. M.S. Virk, Advocate
for respondent no.2.
ANITA CHAUDHRY , J.
The trial of the petitioner in case FIR No. 61 dated 11.03.2011,
registered under Sections 341, 354, 34 IPC, Police Station Sector 36,
Chandigarh culminated into his conviction and he was substantively
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month with
a fine of Rs. 500/- for commission of offence under Section 341 IPC. He
was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 02
years with a fine of Rs.2000/- for commission of offence under Section 354
The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh on 02.06.2018 and the petitioner
was taken into custody.
1 of 3
26-12-2018 15:18:26 :::
Crl. Rev. No. 2240 of 2018 (OM). -2-
Aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has preferred the
instant revision petition. During the pendency thereof, it is claimed that the
parties have entered into compromise with the intervention of respectable
persons. Affidavit of complainant and compromise deed reiterating the
factum of compromise, was placed on record. Interim bail was granted to
the petitioner and parties were directed to appear before the CJM,
Chandigarh for getting their statements recorded with regard to genuineness
of the compromise.
Report has been called from the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Chandigarh, after statements of the parties were recorded regarding the
compromise. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh has reported that
the compromise is voluntary and without any pressure or coercion. He has
also sent copy of statements of parties along with the report.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that parties have
decided to settle the dispute by entering into a compromise. Affidavit of the
complainant has been filed, wherein the factum of the parties having entered
into compromise is reiterated. All the parties have appeared before the CJM,
Chandigarh and have affirmed the compromise. It is prayed that in view of
the compromise, the petitioner may be acquitted.
Learned counsel appearing for the complainant/respondent no.2
states that the complainant has no objection if the petitioner is acquitted.
In the instant case, better sense has prevailed to the parties and
they have put an end to their grievance and have settled the dispute with
their free will without any pressure or coercion.
2 of 3
26-12-2018 15:18:27 :::
Crl. Rev. No. 2240 of 2018 (OM). -3-
Since the parties have amicably settled their dispute, there is no
legal impediment in granting permission to them to compound the offence.
In view of the statements and report of the CJM, Chandigarh and the
principles laid down by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder
Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR
(Criminal) 1052, approved by Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State
of Punjab and others (2012) 10 SCC 303, the instant revision petition is
allowed. Consequently, the judgments of conviction and sentence passed by
the Courts below are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charges.
December 19, 2018 (ANITA CHAUDHRY)
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
26-12-2018 15:18:27 :::