213 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-1926-SB-2007 (O&M)

Date of Decision:06.04.2026 Jai Ram and Anr. …Appellants Vs.

State of Haryana and Anr. …Respondents Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present: Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Rajiv Sidhu, Sr.DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Ajay Kaushik, Advocate for the respondent No.2.

***

N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral)

CRM-4281-2026

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

2. Affidavit of the complainant/respondent No.2 is taken on record.

Main case

1. The appellants have filed the present appeal against the impugned judgment of conviction dated 14.09.2007 and order of sentence dated 15.09.2007, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, whereby, the appellants were ordered to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC and were sentenced as under:-

Under Section 326 IPC R.I for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for a period of one year.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants contend that during the pendency of the present appeal before this Court, the better sense is prevailed on both the sides and they have entered into a compromise with each other. He further submits that even otherwise, the parties are related to each other and are residents of same village. He also referred to the affidavit, which was duly sworn by respondent No.2 in the present case, wherein, he had admitted the factum of compromise and submitted that he had no objection in case, the present appeal is allowed by this Court and the appellants are acquitted of the charge by this Court.

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

4. 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 considerations.

20.Having appraised the afore-stated para-meters and weighing upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of the two appeals before us, we are inclined to invoke powers under Article 142 and quash the criminal proceedings and consequently set aside the conviction in both the appeals. We say so for the reasons that-

Firstly, the occurrence(s) involved in these appeals can be categorized as purely personal or having overtones of criminal proceedings of private nature;

Secondly, the nature of injuries incurred, for which the Appellants have been convicted, do not appear to exhibit their mental depravity or commission of an offence of such a serious nature that quashing of which would override public interest;

Thirdly, given the nature of the offence and injuries, it is immaterial that the trial against the Appellants had been concluded or their appeal(s) against conviction stand dismissed; Fourthly, the parties on their own vo