IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 30.10.2025 Sanjeev Kumar ..... Petitioner(s)

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

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. Manoj Tanwar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ved Parkash, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Ankit Singh, Advocate for Mr. Aruz Khan, Advocate for respondent No.2.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral)

1. By compounding the offence for which the petitioner has been convicted the acceptance of present revision petition is being sought on the ground that the petitioner has entered into compromise with the complainant/victim. It has also been alleged by the petitioner that the offence is compoundable and the complainant/victim has no objection if by compounding the offence, the present petition is accepted and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence are set aside.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner in the backdrop of the fact that vide FIR No.32 dated 18.02.2013 under Sections 325, 323 and 34 IPC, Police Station Pundri, he was prosecuted for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 323, 325 and 34 IPC and the above mentioned trial culminated against the petitioner. Resultantly, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal held the petitioner guilty and convicted him, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 323, 325 and 34 IPC. On conviction, the learned trial Court awarded following sentence to the petitioner on 26.11.2014:-

3. Aggrieved of the above mentioned judgment of conviction and order of sentence the petitioner along with his co-accused filed an appeal in the court of learned Sessions Judge and sought setting aside of above mentioned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. However, the appeal prefered by the present petitioner against the judgment of conviction and quantum of sentence did not find favour in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, and the same was dismissed.

4. It is also relevant to mention here that with regard to co- accused namely Partap Singh, although the appeal against judgment of conviction was upheld, but with regard of sentence, the order was modified and he was afforded the benefit of probation of good conduct.

5. Now it has been alleged by the petitioner that the injured Siri Chand is his real uncle, and that being family member, with the intervention of elders of the society, they have reached to a compromise and in view of compromise the injured/complainant in this case, namely Siri Chand, has agreed to compound the offence. In support of his above mentioned contention the petitioner has placed on record an original affidavit sworn by Siri Chand. The contents of above mentioned affidavit shows that in very specific categorical and unequivocal words the injured/complainant Siri Chand has expressed that he does not want to pursue any prosecution against the petitioner, who has already undergone two months imprisonment. According to the injured/complainant he does not want any legal action against the petitioner In order to lend credence to the above mentioned contents of the affidavit of injured/complainant Siri Chand, his counsel has put in appearance and stated that the plea raised by the petitioner with regard to compromise and compounding of offence is true.

6. To test the genuiness of the compromise this, court vide order dated 20.08.2025, had directed the parties to appear before the Investigating Officer for recording their statements, and called the report.

7. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 26.09.2025 has been received from the Investigating Officer. A perusal of above said report reveals that statements o