IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

201 Date of Decision: 10.02.2026 CRR-194-2019 Chamkaur Singh ...Petitioner.

Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents.

CRR-3524-2018 Chamkaur Singh ...Petitioner.

Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents.

***

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR ----

Present: Mr. N.S. Dandiwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Navdeep Singh, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Amaninder Preet, Advocate for private respondents (both cases).

****

Sukhvinder Kaur, J.

This order shall dispose of the above mentioned two revision petitions arising out of judgment dated 01.09.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, whereby the appeal preferred by respondents/ accused against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.02.2017 passed by learned trial Court, was partly allowed while modifying the order of sentence. The respondents/ accused were ordered to be released on probation on their furnishing bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with one surety in the like amount for a period of one year with an undertaking to keep peace and be of good behaviour during the probation period and were further directed to pay compensation to the complainant.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the present FIR was registered on the basis of statement of Chamkaur Singh on the allegations that on 07.07.2011, at about 8:50 P.M., accused persons armed with weapons, entered in his house and inflicted injuries to him and his wife Karamjit Kaur. After completion of investigation, challan was presented against the accused persons.

3. In order to prove its case prosecution examined five witnesses. Statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein all the incriminating evidence against accused was put to them.

4. On the basis of the evidence led on record by the appellants/ accused were held guilty and convicted by the trial Court. The accused preferred an appeal against the said judgment and learned Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal in the manner narrated above.

5. Aggrieved against the judgment of granting of probation, the petitioner/ complainant has approached this Court by preferring the present revision petition.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that judgment dated 21.02.2017 had been passed by the trial Court after properly appreciating the evidence on record and the accused were rightly convicted. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents/ accused has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Rajinder Singh Versus State of Haryana & others passed in CRM-M-249-2013 dated 27.08.2018 to contend that once the probation period is over, the present petition has been rendered infructuous.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

9. This Court in Rajinder Singh Versus State of Haryana &

others passed in CRM-M-249-2013 dated 27.08.2018, held as under:-

“The judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal is dated 27.10.2012, thus, respondent No.2 and 3 have already undergone sentence of probation imposed upon them and, therefore, no reason arises for me to go into the legality or propriety of the impugned judgment. The present petition stands disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.”

10. In the present case, the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga is dated 01.09.2018 and therefore, respondents/ accused have already undergone the sentence of probation for one year imposed upon them. It has been conceded by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had already received the amount of compensation as per the judgment dated 01.09.2018. Therefore, there is no requirement for this Court to go into the legality or propriety of the impugned judgment.

11. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.

12. Pending CRM(s), if any, are also disposed of accordingly.

13. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected cas