Mohinder Singh and Others vs State of Haryana

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.—This judgment will also dispose of Criminal Revision No. 542 of 1989 Balbir Singh v. Mohinder Singh and Ors.

Mohinder Singh and four others were tried for offences under Sections 148/149/323/325 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code for causing injuries to Balbir Singh a practising lawyer at Rohtak on 30-7-1983. The case was registered against Mohinder Singh and others on the statement of Balbir Singh who alleged that he was chased by Mohinder Singh and four others and was caught hold by Parchara accused and was given injuries by Jai Dey, Bal Kishan and Mohinder Singh with hockey sticks. Parkash accused had raised a ''lalkara'' and had exhorted his co-accused to finish him. After trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Rohtak Acquitted Parchara and Parkash Accused but convicted the other three accused for offences under Sections 323/325 and 506 Indian Penal Code. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each for the offences under Sections 323 and 506 Indian Penal Code and to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 3000/- each for the offence u/s 325 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were to run concurrently. Aggrieved by this judgment dated 6-8-1988 Mohinder Singh and Dal Kishan preferred an appeal and another appeal was filed by Jal Dev. Both the appeals were dismissed by Shri Ram Saran Bhatia, the learned Sessions Judge, Rohtak vide his judgment dated 25-2-1989. Mohinder Singh, Bal Kishan and Jai Dev now preferred this revision petition against the judgment recorded by the Sessions Judge.

The Criminal Revision No. 542 of 1989 has been filed by Dalbir Singh complainant, whereby he prayed for enhancement of the sentence awarded to Mohinder Singh and others.

During the pendency of these proceedings the parties effected compromise and an application was moved by Mohinder Singh etc. for grant of permission to effect compromise. Along with the application a compromise deed and an affidavit of Shri Balbir Singh were placed on file.

Balbir Singh complainant has deposed that he and the accused belonged to the same family and there was no previous enmity. The occurrence took place all of a sudden without any premeditation. The elders of the family had brought about a compromise and he did not want to pursue the matter any further. In case the litigation is continued that will create bad blood. He had settled his dispute with the accused. He, therefore, prayed that the accused may be acquitted. To similar effect is the compromise placed on record.

The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that they had been wrongly convicted of the offence u/s 506 of the Indian Penal Code because as per allegations made in the F.I.R., the petitioners had not issued any threat to the complainant. The only allegation made by the complainant to that effect was that Parkash had exhorted his co-accused to finish him. Parkash was acquitted by the Trial Court and the petitioners, therefore, could not be convicted for this offence. This contention of the learned counsel is valid. Since no threat was issued by any of the petitioners to cause death or grievous hurt to the complainant, they could not be held guilty of the offence u/s 506 Indian Penal Code. I, therefore, acquit them of this charge.

The offence u/s 323 is compoundable and I find that it is a fit case where permission to compound the offence u/s 325 of the Indian Penal Code should be given as parties after long litigation and after falling apart had buried the hatchet and had woven a sense of fellowship and reunion at the instance of their elders. They belong to the same family and there was no previous enmity between them. The incident took place all of a sudden and there was no preplanning or premeditation, I, therefore, permit the parties to effect compromise and in view of the compromise I acquit the petitioners Mohinder Singh and others.

In view of the above order, the Criminal Revision Petition No. 542 of 1989 becomes infructuous and the same is dismissed.