SANGAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE main question that comes up for consideration is as to if the inherent powers of the court can be utilized and invoked in allowing offences to be compounded in non -compoundable cases.

(2.) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala vide his judgment of 29.8.1995 held the appellants Sangat Singh and others guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 323/149, 342/149, 364/149 and 452/149 of the Indian Penal Code. By the subsequent order of sentence of 30.9.1995, the learned trial court had passed the following sentences on each of the appellant :

(3.) THE relevant facts are that on 15.8.1993 Krishna Devi complainant made a report to ASI Deepak Bharti that her husband works as a Welder. On 14.8.1993 he was away in connection with his work. They have a son named Jatinder. Alongwith her son, she was sleeping in the house. At about 11.00 P.M. she heard some noise on the main door. The door has not been bolted because she was waiting for her husband. The light was switched on and she found Kamaljit Singh, Surjit Singh alias Babla, Khaazan Singh and Kamal Singh present in the courtyard of the house. They were all armed with iron rods and sticks. They informed her that Jatinder had broken their window Panes Krishna Devi told them that Jatinder was in the house. On this the said persons were infuriated. They took away Jatinder with them.