IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Lovepreet @ Kanas ...Petitioner(s).

Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondent(s).

Judgment Judgment Operative Part Uploaded on reserved on pronounced on Pronounced or full

06.03.2026 13.03.2026 Fully pronounced 13.03.2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Raghav Sharma, Advocate for the appellant(s).

Mr. Birender Bikram Attray, AAG, Haryana.

----

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

232 4.7.2019 Ladwa, Kurukshetra 341, 379B, 506, 120B, 34 IPC

1. This appellant-convict namely Lovepreet @ Kanas, has come up before this Court by filing the present appeal seeking setting aside of his conviction and order of sentence passed against him..

2. Vide order dated 02.02.2022, the present appeal was admitted and recovery of the fine amount was stayed. Subsequently, vide order dated 30.05.2022, the substantive sentence of the appellant-convict was suspended during the pendency of the appeal.

3. During the pendency of the present appeal, the appellant-convict filed application(s) for impleading the complainant as respondent no.2 and for setting aside of the judgment the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as mentioned above, on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties vide compromise deed dated 13.01.2022 (Annexure A-1). Accordingly, this Court vide order dated 08.01.2024, impleaded the complainant as respondent no.2. The complainant appeared through his counsel and stated that he has compromised the matter with the appellant-convict. On their joint request, they were directed to appear before the concerned Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for getting their statements recorded with regard to the compromise so arrived and the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate was directed to ascertain the genuineness and voluntariness of the compromise so arrived at.

4. Pursuant thereto, a report dated 18.01.2024 was received from the learned District and Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, wherein it was reported that the parties had voluntarily entered into a compromise and that the complainant had no objection if the FIR in question, the judgment(s) of conviction, order(s) of sentence and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the appellant-convict Lovepreet @ Kanas are set aside.

5. There are three convicts, out of whom the appellant-convict has filed the present appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. However, during the pendency of the appeal, the appellant entered into an out-of-Court settlement with the complainant, who has unequivocally stated that he has no objection to the setting aside of the conviction and sentence qua the appellant.

6. The question which arises for consideration before this Court is whether the proceedings can be legally quashed or compromised qua the appellant alone.

7. This Court is of the considered opinion that if the pendency of the criminal appeal qua the appellant-convict, who has already been released on suspension of sentence, is allowed to continue despite the compromise, the same would unnecessarily impinge upon his liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Even though the appellant is on bail, the pendency of criminal proceedings continues to impose restrictions upon his liberty by way of subsisting bail bonds and the stigma of conviction. A pragmatic approach would, therefore, require that where a lawful compromise has been effected between the complainant and one of the convicts, the Court should not unnecessarily prolong the proceedings awaiting final adjudication, but should instead consider closing the proceedings qua the concerned convict, provided such compromise can legally be accepted.

8. It would be relevant to refer to certain judicial precedents wherein convictions have been set aside based on the compromise.:

a). In Parameswari v. Vennila, (2000) 10 SCC 348, the appellants before Hon'ble Supreme Court had been convic