Shishanpreet Singh And ANR v. State Of Punjab And ANR

-1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh 1.

Crl. Misc.-M-13246 of 2015 Date of decision: 10.12.2015 Shishanpreet Singh and another ......Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and another ......Respondents 2.

Crl. Revision No. 2905 of 2011 Shishan Preet Singh .......Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ......Respondent 2.

Crl. Revision No. 341 of 2012 Kuldeep Singh @ Kindi .......Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

Present:

Mr. B.S.Jatana, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. J.S.Sekhon, AAG, Punjab.

None for respondent No. 2.

**** SABINA, J.

Vide this order, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of.

Petitioners had faced the trial qua commission of offence punishable under Section 452, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code,

-21860 ('IPC' for short) in FIR No. 22 dated 9.5.2009, registered at Police Station Kotfatta. Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 3.8.2010 ordered the conviction and sentence of the petitioners under Section 452, 325, 323 IPC. Aggrieved against the said judgment/order of their conviction and sentence, petitioners preferred two appeals and the same were dismissed by the Appellate Court vide order dated 12.11.2011. Hence, the present petitions by the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that during the pendency of the revision petitions filed by the petitioners, parties have amicably settled their dispute. In Criminal Miscellaneous-M-13246 of 2015, vide order dated 7.7.2015, parties were directed to appear before the Area Magistrate and the Area Magistrate was directed to record the statements of the parties and send its report with regard to genuineness of the compromise effected between the parties.

In pursuance to the said order, the Magistrate after recording the statements of the parties has reported that the compromise effected between the parties was valid and genuine. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that he does not challenge the conviction of the petitioners under Section 323, 325, 452 IPC but has submitted that sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioners be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

Accordingly, conviction of the petitioners under Section 323, 325, 452 IPC is maintained. However, sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone by them.

-3All the petitions stand disposed of accordingly. (SABINA) JUDGE December 10, 2015 Gurpreet