*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

CRM-15847-2026 & CRA-S-1257-2026

The learned State Counsel has filed short reply as well as custody certificate of the appellant today. The same be taken on record.

2. Heard.

3. Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.03.2026, passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge Moga, hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’ only, the present appeal has been preferred.

4. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that a FIR, i.e. FIR No.69 dated 23.04.2024, under Sections 379-B, 411, 201 and 489 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Dharamkot, was lodged at the instance of respondent No.2/complainant, hereinafter being referred to as ‘respondent No.2’ only, against the appellant. The abovementioned FIR led to a trial, which culminated into conviction of the applicant. The learned trial Court held the appellant guilty and convicted him, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 379-B and 411 of IPC, and sentenced him as under:-

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

5. Now it has been alleged by the appellant that with the intervention of respectables of the society, he has reached to a compromise and in view of compromise the complainant in this case, i.e. respondent No.2, has agreed to compound the offence. In support of his abovementioned contentions, the appellant has placed on record the compromise deed. The contents of abovementioned compromise deed shows that in very specific, categorical and unequivocal words the complainant/ respondent No.2 has expressed that he does not want to pursue any prosecution against the appellant. According to the complainant/respondent No.2, he does not want any legal action against the appellant.

6. In order to lend credence to the abovementioned contents of the compromise deed executed with the respondent No.2, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 stated, at bar, that the plea raised by the appellant with regard to compromise and compounding of offence is true.

7. Vide order dated 16.04.2026, the learned counsel for the parties had informed that during the pendency of the appeal, the parties have entered into a compromise and to test the genuineness of the compromise, vide order dated 04.05.2026, the parties were directed to appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Moga, for recording of their statements regarding the compromise entered into between them. On that day the matter was adjourned to 27.05.2026 for awaiting report.

8. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the report from the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Moga dated 21.05.2026 has been received. The same be taken on record. A perusal of abovesaid report reveals that statements of the concerned persons, i.e. the complainant/respondent No.2 and the accused person (the appellant herein), have been recorded, who have stated that all the disputes/differences in this regard have been amicably settled between them and they shall not institute any other case against each other regarding the instant dispute against each other. The compromise effected between them has been reported to be genuine, and without any undue influence & coercion.

9. The record has been perused carefully.

10. As far as the offence allegedly committed by the appellants is concerned, the offence punishable under Sections 379-B, 201 and 489 of IPC, for which the appellant has been prosecuted, is non-compoundable. If the facts and circumstances pertaining to present case are analyzed in the backdrop of relevant legal principles, it transpires:-

i) that the occurrence involved in the present case is purely personal and