In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CRA-S-1652-SB-2010 (O&M)

Date of Decision:- 13.11.2025 Sheo Chand and others … Appellants Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present:- Mr. Gautam Dutt, Senior Advocate with Mr. Karan Pathak, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Varun Suman, Advocate, for the complainant.

*****

SUBHAS MEHLA , J. (Oral)

1. The appellants, herein, filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment of conviction dated 14.06.2010 and order of sentence dated 15.06.2010 in case bearing FIR No.413 dated 17.08.2025 registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 307 and 506 of IPC at Police Station Sadar, Gurgaon, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, vide which, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo as under:-

However, the aforesaid sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The present appeal was admitted on 26.07.2010, thereafter, sentence of appellants No.1 to 3 and 5 to 10 was suspended during the pendency of the present appeal vide order dated 26.07.2010, and thereafter, on 07.02.2011, sentence of appellant No.4 was suspendend during the pendency of the appeal.

3. A perusal of order dated 27.08.2025 passed by this Court shows that the present dispute is between the family members and a compromise has been effected between the parties.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he does not want to assail the judgment on the point of conviction, he only wants to assail the same on the order of quantum of sentence as a compromise has been effected between the parties.

5. Vide order dated 16.09.2025, the parties were directed to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned for recording of their statement in view of the compromise arrived at.

6. In compliance thereof, report from the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram along with statements of the parties has been received, in which, it is mentioned that the parties have entered into a compromise voluntarily and without any coercion and undue influence. However, one accused Sheo Chand had already expired and his death certificate has also been filed along with the statements of parties.

7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sy. Azhar Sy. Kalandar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2021 AIR Supreme Court 4298 decided on 13.09.2021, took sympathetic view and reduced the quantum of sentence taking into consideration of compromise arrived at beween the parties. The operative part of which is as under:-

“ XXX

11. In almost the same circumstances which have been noticed by us, a three Judge Bench of this Court in a recent judgment in Murali v. State represented by Inspector of Police 2021(1) SCC 726, where the parties decided to forgive their past and live amicably, this Court has come to their rescue by interfering in the quantum of sentence which obviously is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C., 1973 but has interfered since there is no minimum sentence prescribed. This Court in Murali (supra), has taken note of the judgment of this Court in Ram Pujan and Others v. State of U.P . 1973(2) SCC 456 which was further followed by this Court in Ishwar Singh v. State of M.P. 2008(15) SCC 667 and the later decisions as referred to in paras 11 and 12 of the judgment has taken note of the compromise between the parties to reduce the sentence of the convicts even in serious non-compoundable offences. The relevant paras are as follows:-

"11. In later decisions including in Ram Lal v. State of J&K (1999) 2 SCC 213; Bankat v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 1 SCC 343; Mohar Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2015) 11 SCC 226; Nanda Gopalan v. State of Kerala (2015) 11 SCC 137; Shankar v. State of Maha