Raghav Periwal And ANR v. State Of Punjab And Others
!"!
# $ %% &'( )!*+ # # '
) %%%%%% !!
# )"
( )","
-
,#./ #
'
)"
%%%%%% "0 # #"
$
12 % - 3
!
" #$% & '() * )+ ,,,, 3
%
5)+6 # $ - ) . )/01& 22 34 325) 67 34 237#0* % * 72!
/8%- !"" 32' 9 7+ : 2 2 32 %%$ )$ ;() - ) . ) /01 ! ) & 22 34 325 67 34 237#0*)
% * 72! /8%- %%
. % ) ) " !""
! ! "!%
%! $ ""% ! ! $ "
& "
1-!$% ! !% & 27 "
#$% !% & % -% " - $%) "" ( ! % 0%%. ) < % * ) " $ ) ""<
%" 2= 3 0 "% " ""! !. * (% 0%%. ) < %* !" ! 9 ) ) %%$ ) " &"! /01> ? %" > ? "") % $ % ? %
( %* % " 0 ) ): $" "<"%
/01 ($ % ) 22 3 3@ "
! 2 3 3! $ -
%* %%$ ;'+0 " 0 ) )
: /01! ) ) $ '+0 " 0 ) ) : %%" /01 '+ 0 !-) - ) $ " ! "% " "" ! $ ) % $
% '+ 0 " 0 ) ): % /01 '+0 " 0 ) ) : 0 &) 1- "%
@
" #$% & " ) "" However, learned State counsel submits that though as per the report, the parties have compromised, but the fact remains that offence punishable under Sections 120-B of the IPC is 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 under>7 ;22 ( $ A 7
7 " !%B ! " !" % 9 $ 3 * *
" ! $% " % " 3* *$ 9%" C)% ( % "!)
% )) 3* * $" $ % - A" !%B $! % - " !% & % %" " $ "$- 3* * "!)) - ) $!
D)* 6=* * (D)* - ) $ % " !% 6=* * ! * < @ E ) $ %$%$ !"*
""/01& 22 34 325 ) 67 34 237#0* % * 72! /8%- %% ) ) "
!..
Petition stands allowed.
5 3
%%
? - )< F<& ? 1 !% F<&