115+230 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-1829-2012 (O&M)

Date of Decision:06.04.2026 Rupinder Singh @ Pinki …Petitioners Vs.

State of Punjab …Respondent Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present: Mr. Amarpreet Singh, Advocate for Mr. Binderjet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Charanpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Inderpal Singh Parmar, Advocate for the complainant (POA filed).

***

N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral)

CRM-824-2026

1. Application is allowed as prayed for, subject to just all exceptions.

2. Annexures A-1 and A-2 are taken on record.

Main case

1. The petitioner has filed the present revision petition against the impugned judgment dated 17.04.2012 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Bathinda and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.09.2011, passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phul, whereby the petitioner was ordered to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 of IPC and was sentenced as under:-

2. During the pendency of the present revision petition before this Court, the petitioner had moved the application under Section 528 of B.N.S.S with a prayer to allow the parties to compound the offences in the present case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the incident in the present case had occurred on 14.09.2007. At that time, both the parties were young and the occurrence had taken place at the spur of the moment. Now, a period of more than 18 years has elapsed and the complainant & the petitioner have developed cordial relations for the past 18 years and are living in the village peacefully. Even, he referred to the compromise deed (Annexure A-1) in this regard and affidavit of the complainant was also annexed as (Annexure A- 2). Consequently, he prays that the parties may be allowed to compound the offences.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant also submits that the parties have already entered into a compromise and he has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be acquitted by this Court.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance, I have gone through the trial Court record carefully.

6. In the present case, after conviction of the petitioner, better sense has already prevailed on the parties and they have already executed a compromise deed (Annexure A-1). Even, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Ramgopal and Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh”, reported as 2021 (4) (RCR) (Crl) Page 322 has observed that even inherent powers can be exercised, even after conviction of the accused by the Courts and the relevant extract of the said judgment has been reproduced below:-

“19. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to Section

320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences ‘compoundable’ within the statutory framework, the extraordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant c