← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRR/3781/2015allowed

Kuldeep Singh v. State Of Punjab

2016-01-21Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRR No.3781 of 2015 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 21, 2016 Kuldeep Singh

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab and another

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms.Shivali, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

Mr.Sushil Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

The present revision has been filed by the petitioner Kuldeep Singh against respondents State of Punjab and Sukhchain Singh, challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.11.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagraon, vide which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of `1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days under Section 325 IPC and further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay fine of

CRR No.3781 of 2015 -2- `500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days under Section 323 IPC and also challenging the judgment dated 10.09.2015 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide which appeal filed by petitioner was dismissed.

Notice of motion was issued and learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 put in appearance. In the present case, criminal misc. application No.35673 of 2015 under Section 320(6) read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of permission to compound the offences. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. From the record, I find that revision petitioner has been convicted only under Sections 323 and 325 IPC and both are compoundable offences.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also admitted the factum of compromise and state that he has no objection if the accused-petitioner is acquitted in view of the compromise. In view of the fact that a compromise has been effected between the parties and there will be no dispute in future and they will live in cordial relations, the application for compounding the offence is allowed.

In view of the lawful composition between the parties, both the judgments passed by learned Courts below are set aside and the offence under Sections 323 and 325 IPC is compounded.

CRR No.3781 of 2015 -3Accordingly, the accused-petitioner is acquitted and the revision petition stands allowed.

Since, the petitioner is on bail, his bail bonds stands discharged.

January 21, 2016 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE