Amrit Singh v. State Of Haryana And ORS

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Decision:-9.12.2021 Amrit Singh ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others ... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. Sushil Sheoran, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajiv Sidhu, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Rajat Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Mohit, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. ***** GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.(Oral) 1.

The petitioner-Amrit Singh has approached this court challenging judgment dated 9.5.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar, whereby an appeal filed by the petitioner against judgment dated 11.4.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jhajjar has been dismissed and conviction of the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 of Indian Penal Code has been upheld. 2.

The petitioner was tried for offences under Sections 323 and 325 of Indian Penal Code and as per judgment dated 11.4.2017 passed by learned Judicial

( 2 ) Magistrate 1st Class, Jhajjar, he was held guilty for having committed offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 of Indian Penal Code and vide order dated 12.4.2017, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year for offence under Section 325 IPC and for 6 months for offence under Section 323 IPC. Both the sentences were, however, to run concurrently. The said conviction and sentence was maintained by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar while dismissing the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner.

3.

During the pendency of the instant petition, the matter was compromised. Vide order dated 22.5.2019, the petitioner as well as the complainant and injured were directed to get their statements recorded before the learned JMIC, Jhajjar qua the factum of compromise.

4.

Report of learned JMIC, Jhajjar has been received, wherein it has been reported that statements of the petitioner as well as of the complainant and injured have been recorded and it has been opined that the compromise has been entered amongst the parties out of their free will and consent. As per the compromise, the complainant has no objection for acquittal of the petitioner. 5.

The petitioner is aged 69 years and is not even stated to be involved in any other case. The petitioner is stated to be brother-in-law of the complainant. Since the dispute seems to have arisen amongst members of the same family and has been amicably resolved as has been specifically reported by learned JMIC, Jhajjar, the conviction of the petitioner as recorded by learned JMIC, Jhajjar and as affirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar is hereby set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of all the charges framed against him.

( 3 ) 6.

The revision petition stands accepted accordingly in view of compromise. 9.12.2021 ( Gurvinder Singh Gill ) pankaj Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No