IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Kuldeep & others ...Petitioner(s).

Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent(s).

Judgment Judgment Operative Part Uploaded on reserved on pronounced on Pronounced or full

11.03.2026 07.04.2026 Fully pronounced 07.04.2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR Present: Mr. Sumit Ruhal, Advocate for the appellant(s).

Mr. Shiva Khurmi, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Nilesh Kant Goyal, Advocate for Mr. A.S. Virk, Advocate for the complainant.

----

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

137 19.4.2016 Madlauda, District Panipat 323, 324, 307, 506 read with Section

34 IPC

1. This appellant-convicts, had come up before this Court by filing the present appeal seeking setting aside of their conviction and order of sentence passed against them.

2. Vide order dated 26.11.2019, the present appeal was admitted and the order dated 06.11.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, granting interim suspension of sentence of the appellant(s), was ordered to remain operative during the pendency of the appeal.

3. During the pendency of the present appeal, the appellant-convicts filed application i.e. CRM-43934-2024for setting aside of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as mentioned above, on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties vide compromise deed dated 15.05.2023 (Annexure A-1) and prayed for compounding of offences, as both the parties residents of same village and belong to same caste and brotherhood. On 12.01.2026, the complainant appeared through her counsel and stated that she has compromised the matter with the appellant-convicts. Accordingly, this Court vide order dated 12.01.2026, directed the parties to appear before the concerned Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for getting their statements recorded with regard to the compromise so arrived and the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate was directed to ascertain the genuineness and voluntariness of the compromise so arrived and submit its report in the given proforma. The relevant extract of the report of the concerned Court reads as follows:

Name of the reporting Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class/Illaqa Court Magistrate FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

137 19.4.2016 Madlauda, District Panipat 323, 324, 307, 506 read with Section 34 IPC.

Criminal Case no. SC-21 of 2017 before trial Court

4. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the parties had voluntarily entered into a compromise and that the complainant had no objection if the judgment(s) of conviction, order(s) of sentence and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the appellant-convicts, are set aside.

5. There are four convicts in the present case and they have filed the present appeal, challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellants entered into an out-of-Court settlement with the complainant, who has unequivocally stated that she has no objection to the setting aside of the conviction and sentence qua the appellants.

6. This Court is of the considered opinion that if the pendency of the present criminal appeal qua the appellant-convicts, whose substantive sentence was already suspended by trial Court itself, which was continued by this Court during the pendency of this appeal, is allowed to continue despite the compromise, the same would unnecessarily impinge upon his liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Even though the sentence of the appellants has suspended, the pendency of criminal proceedings continues to impose restrictions upon their liberty by way of subsisting bail bonds and the stigma of conviction. A pragmatic approach would, therefore, require that where a lawful compromise has been effected between the complainant and one of the convicts, the Court should not unnecessarily prolong the proceedings awaiting final adjudication, but should instead consider closing the