Tarlok Singh And ORS. v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 01.02.2022 TARLOK SINGH AND ANOTHER ... Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL
Present:
Mr. Gaurav Kalsi, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Raminder Joon, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.
**** HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.(Oral) Case is taken up for hearing through video conferencing. Challenge in the present petition is to the judgment dated 16.01.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran, vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioners against judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court, was dismissed. Vide the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.03.1999 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Patti, petitioner No.1-Tarlok Singh was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 325 and 324/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 02 years and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each, under Sections 325 and 326 and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 year under Section 324/34 IPC.
-2Petitioner No.2-Gurinder Singh was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 325/34 and 326/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 year each, besides payment of fine of Rs.200/- each under Sections 325/34 and 326/34 IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, during the pendency of the present petition, Didar Singh-complainant in the present case passed away on 13.12.2016. It is further submitted that the petitioners are on bail after their sentence was suspended vide order dated 22.02.2008 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. Still further, it is submitted that now a compromise dated 06.09.2019 has been effected between the petitioners and respondents No.2 and 3 (legal heirs of the deceased-complainant). It is yet further submitted that the parties may be allowed to compound the offences on the basis of the said compromise.
In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal No.1489 of 2021 titled Ramgopal and Another vs The State of Madhya Pradesh, decided on 29.09.2021.
Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 has not disputed the fatum of compromise arrived at between the petitioners and the said respondents.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners have been facing the agony of trial since 1995. Admittedly, parties to the lis are co-villagers and having adjoining lands. The
-3complainant has expired and a compromise has been effected between the petitioners and the legal heirs of the complainant i.e. respondents No.2 and 3, meaning thereby that the dispute between the parties stands amicably settled. The offence against which the petitioners were charged are not heinous in nature.
This Court is conscious of the fact that the extra-ordinary jurisdiction vested under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised in exceptional cases, but keeping in view the protracted trial faced by the petitioners and the fact that the compromise has been effected between the petitioners and the legal heirs of the complainant, this Court deems it a fit case to exercise such jurisdiction, to meet the ends of justice.
!
!
"#
!
$ % "
&
!
"
"#
$
#
## #
!
% "#
# &! '
(
" &
!
#&
'% (
!
"
#
$%&
'
-4-
!
()* + "
*
+
'
' !
' , !
,
'
'
-,,
',
'
.
'
#
' #
', '
-/
0
'
-
' )
'
1
'
'
,
'
,
,
,
,
-
'
'
'
'
' , '
,
,
'
-
" !
"
'
,
'
"
-5-
"
,
* +
,
"
2 "
$
) # &!
)
(
"&
!
&* The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramgopal's case (supra) while considering its earlier judgments, including the one in
* #+
% (,- .
"## ##
/01!!$ ! 2 )
) "#" $
# #
3 "# $ ) "
$4 & % )#$
# !
560!!
!
,50 ! 4
) "
/01!!7 $
#$ $
"#
&
)
& 2 " #
" '*+7
)8*+
) )8*+9 ) "#" $
"8:*+
# #
##
;
<
#
"#"
#
## $
$ "
-6- #
Accordingly, while allowing the parties to compound the offences on the basis of the compromise, the present revision petition is allowed and all the proceedings arising out of FIR No.135 dated 30.06.1995, under Sections 326, 325, 324, 323, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Patti, including the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.03.1999 passed by SubDivisional Magistrate, Patti and the order dated 16.01.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran, are hereby quashed, subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- by the petitioners to be deposited with the Police Welfare Fund, Punjab.
Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise dated 06.09.2019. 01.02.2022 (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) Aman Jain JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No