IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

203 Criminal Revision No.1084 of 2007 Date of decision: August 26^th, 2025 Dalbara Singh and others .....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present: Mr. Yashpal Thakur, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Amit Rana, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)

Petitioners are impugning the judgment dated 07.03.2005 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, and the judgment dated 07.06.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ludhiana, whereby they were convicted for offence under Sections 452 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a ₹

fine of 500/- each with default stipulation.

2. At the outset, learned State counsel has placed on record the photocopy of death certificates of petitioner No.2-Jagtar Singh and petitioner No.4-Hari Singh.

3. Accordingly, proceedings qua the above-mentioned petitioners stand abated.

4. Mr. Yashpal Thakur, Advocate, has entered appearance on behalf of petitioner Nos.1 and 3 and filed his power of attorney, which is taken on record.

5. Mr. H.S. Sandhu, Advocate, has entered appearance on behalf of the complainant and filed memorandum of appearance, which is taken on record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement subsequent to the conviction of the petitioners. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon judgment of this Court in Sube Singh and another Vs. State of Haryana and another 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 102 and Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1393 of 2011 titled as 'Ramawtar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh' decided on 25.10.2021: LL 2021 SC 589, wherein it has been held that the powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can be invoked to quash a complaint/FIR on the basis of a voluntary compromise even at a post conviction stage.

7. Learned counsel for the complainant does not dispute the submissions made by counsel opposite and also does not oppose the prayer for compounding of the offence on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

8. In view of the fact that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.1393 of 2011 titled as 'Ramawtar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh' decided on 25.10.2021: LL 2021 SC 589 and this Court in Sube Singh and another Vs. State of Haryana and another: 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 102, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned judgments and order of conviction are set aside. The offence under Sections 452 and 323 of the IPC is hereby compounded.

9. Needless to say, the parties shall remain bound by the terms of compromise.

August 26^th, 2025 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)

JUDGE Puneet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No