IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-2895-2025 (O & M)

Date of decision: 08.12.2025 Amarjit Thapar ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Present: Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Gagandeep Kaur, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Lovish Rattan, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the judgment dated 15.09.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, dismissing the appeal filed against the judgment/order dated 17.02.2020 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:

2. The facts in brief are that the complainant had made the payment of Rs.2,22,000/- in total to the petitioner-accused for sending his son to Australia, but the latter had neither kept his promise nor returned the money and committed the offence of cheating with the former, whereupon FIR under Section 420 IPC was got registered. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented, on the basis of which charges were framed, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. On closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him while pleading false implication. In defence, no witness was examined.

4. On scrutinizing the evidence led by the parties, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner as noticed above.

5. Aggrieved petitioner had filed an appeal, which was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, vide impugned judgment dated 15.09.2025.

6 Challenge to the aforesaid judgment has been made in the present revision petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the present petition, the matter stands compromised between the parties with the intervention of the respectables. The petitioner is a first time offender. Since both the parties are co-villagers and the incident is of the year 2015, he prays for compounding of the offence in view of the law laid down in Ramgopal vs. State of M.P., 2021 SCC OnLine SC

834 and Surat Singh vs. State of Uttaranchal, (2012) 12 SCC 772.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant-respondent No.2 has no objection with regard to the prayer made by the petitioner and states that a valid compromise has been effected between the parties and there remains no grievance.

9. Heard.

10. It is apparent that during pendency of the present revision petition, the parties have entered into a compromise and amicably settled the dispute. In this regard, reference is made to the compromise deed dated 17.10.2025, Annexure P-1, wherein it has been mentioned that upon the intervention of the respectable persons of village, society and relatives, all the doubts and misconceptions have been clarified, all the disputes have been resolved and an amicable compromise was arrived at before the Panchayat. The complainant-respondent No.2 has also given his no objection for compounding the offence and setting aside the judgment of the conviction/ order of sentence dated 17.02.2020 as well as appeal against the same, which was dismissed vide order dated

15.09.2025.

11. In pursuance of the order dated 17.11.2025, a report dated 29.11.2025 has been received from learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Kapurthala. A perusal of the same reveals that statements of the concerned persons have been recorded in the present case, who have stated that the matter has been settled between them and they have no objection in case the convicti