Sumit And ANR v. State Of Haryana And Others



 
    
  



 !

"#$#%& '

'

()*# %! % + , ''''''

# #% ,$ - ,$)$ (

  ,.

% %! + ,$ '''''' $/%!

% $
& 01'(

 2

 


 





 
 







 
 
!


" 
 
 
# $

%%%%  2

3'4, 56
&!
'!






 ( 

)*
# +++$

+, +, $+$$





-


,./
,.0
1$1
.2$

2+3
*4
5
$2
  

-
-
6

-

7
8

9







:

,/ +$ $+$$
 $2 +1 $+$$
5;


<$

<16

=
+> +.

$+$$

--'

'
< ?



-

 ./$
4

( 

)*
# +++$
 +, +, $+$$


,./
,.0
1$1
.2$

2+3 *4
5
$2

 

-
-
6
  ( 





 




#



 

 
!



" 

 


-
  
# ,:

$

1
 -!


!





*--( :-
4 

$2 +.

$+$$


!
 




4 


  

'







@
-



--

 

 -
4 
*




 
 

4 
'--

 


 

 4 


;



-
'
 
6

 

- !
 
 


A
6
'
--

 :







4 



-A

6

'
!



 

 :

 B 

$> +> $+$$  




 

-
4 "

-



+$ +2 $+$$



'
 






 

-
4 


 --'<
  
  

           

         
       

       

   

    

  

  

     


      

     

   

  

     

 

    

!

 "


" 





 
# $ 
 







 However, learned State counsel submits that though as per the report, the parties have compromised, but the fact remains that offences punishable under Sections 148, 149, 452 and 506 of the IPC are non compoundable.

In response thereto, learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1489 of 2012, titled as 'Ramgopal and another vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh'. The relevant portion of which reads as underA< ?,,

@ 




'

D< 

 -E




 
!

 -  



;


'

 1$+
4
!
 



!

 
' -  

-



 
1$+
4 4
'


;- 
 
 F-
@




-
  !
 
- 


1$+
4 
'
!

!

'
 

- 
  




D

 -E
 '


 -!
 
 

 

 -
#-

- 
B  


 


'

 '
 
1$+
4



 


 

'
!


4 

 


./$
4
@

4 
  
'

 -







 

B -




./$ 4




 




!

4 
:

 



B   

'

-'
-
'
!



4 

 









--'
)*

# +++$

+, +, $+$$





-
 
,./
,.0
1$1
.2$

2+3
*4
5
$2

 

- -
6

-

7
8

9


--



 , are, hereby, quashed qua the petitioners.

4 2



'

'

9 G
 : H G
 -
 #