Partly allowed

Pardeep Kumar @ Ghalu & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Jul 2012CRM-M/4420/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court exercised its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow compounding of compoundable offences (Sections 323, 324 IPC) due to a compromise. The court rejected compounding for the non-compoundable offence (Section 326 IPC) but modified the sentence to the period already undergone, ordering the petitioners' release.

What did the court decide?

Compounding granted for Sections 323 and 324 IPC; sentence modified to the period already undergone; petitioners ordered to be set free.

Pardeep Kumar @ Ghalu & Anr. Vs State of Punjab… — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Criminal Misc. No. M-4420 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-4420 of 2012 Date of decision: 04.07.2012.

¶5

Pardeep Kumar alias Ghalu and another

¶6

..Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

¶9

Present: Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶10

Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1 – State.

¶11

Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶12

Daya Chaudhary, J. (Oral)

¶13

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for compounding of offences under Sections 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code in case bearing FIR No.124 dated 28.07.2009 registered at Police Station Model Town, Hoshiarpur as the appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence is pending before learned the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur as the compromise has been effected between the parties during the pendency of the appeal.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners and the complainant are in close relations and during the pendency of the appeal, a compromise has been effected between the parties. The complainant-respondent No.2 has no objection in case, the proceedings arising out of FIR No.124 dated 28.07.2009

¶15

Criminal Misc. No. M-4420 of 2012

¶16

¶17

are quashed.

¶18

Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 has also affirmed the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties and submits that complainant-respondent No.2 has no objection in compounding of the offences.

¶19

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents available on the file.

¶20

Admittedly, FIR No.124 dated 28.07.2009 was registered under Sections 323, 324, 326 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Model Town, Hoshiarpur and vide judgment dated 13.09.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hoshiarpur, petitioners were convicted and sentenced as under: -

¶21

Pardeep Kumar alias Ghalu-petitioner No.1

¶22

Section 326 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of `500/- in default of the payment of the fine to further undergo RI for five days.

¶23

Section 324 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year Sections 323 read with Rigorous imprisonment for 6 months Section 34 IPC

¶24

Deepak alias Deepu-petitioner No.2

¶25

Section 326 read with Rigorous imprisonment for two years and Section 34 IPC fine of `500/- in default of the payment of the fine to further undergo RI for five days. Section 324 read with Rigorous imprisonment for one year Section 34 IPC Section 323 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 6 months

¶26

Subsequently, the petitioners filed appeal against the

¶27

Criminal Misc. No. M-4420 of 2012

¶28

¶29

judgment of conviction and order of sentence before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, which is still pending. During the pendency of the appeal, a compromise has been effected between the parties, which is annexed as Annexure P-2 with the petition.

¶30

The present petition has been filed for seeking compounding of offences under Sections 323, 324, 326 read with Section 34 IPC in case of aforesaid FIR in view of the compromise dated 05.11.2011 and to set-aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence vide judgment dated 13.09.2011 passed by JMIC, Hoshiarpur.

¶31

For compounding of the offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code, a complete scheme has been provided under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Sub-section (1) of Section 320 provides that the offences mentioned in the table provided thereunder can be compounded by the persons mentioned in Column No.3 of the said table. Further, sub-section (2) provides that, the offences mentioned in the table could be compounded by the victim with the permission of the Court. Sub-section (9) specifically provides that “no offence shall be compounded except as provided by this Section.” In view of the aforesaid legislative mandate, only the offences which are covered by table 1 or 2 as stated above can be compounded and the rest of the offences punishable under Indian Penal Code could not be compounded.

¶32

Admittedly, in the present case, offence under Section

¶33

Criminal Misc. No. M-4420 of 2012

¶34

¶35

326 IPC is not compoundable and can be compounded with the permission of the Court. Undoubtedly, offences which are not compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be allowed to be compounded, even if there is any settlement between the complainant and the accused. Reference in this regard may be made to the decisions of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ram Lal and another vs. State of J & K, 2000(1) RCR (Criminal) 92 : 1992 (2) SCC 213 and Ishwar Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2009 (1) RCR (Criminal) 1 : 2008 (6) RAJ 471 : 2008 (15) SCC 667 .

¶36

In view of the settled position and specific bar as provided under Section 320 Cr.P.C., the prayer of the petitioners for compounding of offence under Section 326 IPC is rejected as far as offences under Sections 323, 324 IPC are concerned, the offences are compoundable and accordingly, compounded.

¶37

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment Y. Suresh Babu vs. State of A.P. And another, 1987 (2) JT 361 has held as under: -

¶38

“We gave our anxious consideration to the case and also the plea put forward for seeking permission to compound the offence. After examining the nature of the case and the circumstances under which the offence was committed, it may be proper that the trial court shall permit them to compound the offence.”

¶39

Criminal Misc. No. M-4420 of 2012

¶40

¶41

Although in case of Y. Suresh Babu (supra) , the Court has specifically observed that the said case “shall not be treated as a precedent”. The said decision was based on facts and circumstances of that case.

¶42

After hearing counsel for the parties and after considering the settlement/compromise arrived at between the parties for the purpose of considering the factum of quantum of sentence as the parties are closely related to each other; and the accused are first offenders; and no other criminal case is pending against them; and the object is to maintain peace and harmony; there are other facts and circumstances of the case, which persuade me to interfere on the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioners as the FIR was registered on 28.07.2009 and the petitioners have faced the agony of the trial since then and they have already suffered. Due to compromise effected between the parties during the pendency of the appeal and other facts as mentioned above by upholding the judgment of conviction recorded by the trial Court, the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone.

¶43

Accordingly, order of sentence is modified to that extent. The petitioners shall be set free forthwith if not otherwise required in any case.

¶44

Disposed of accordingly.

¶45

(DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE

¶46

04.07.2012 neetu

Pardeep Kumar @ Ghalu & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pardeep Kumar @ Ghalu & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sonia and Anr. Vs State of Punjab etc.

Deepika etc. Vs State of Haryana etc.

Gollon and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Mandip Vs Deepak

Partima Ahlwawat & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Raj Kumar & Anr. Vs Raghubir Singh