YASHPAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order, I propose to dispose of Criminal Revision No.1518 of 2003 titled as Yash Pal Versus State of Punjab and others, Criminal Revision No.1553 of 2003 titled as Jagan Nath and another Versus State of Punjab others and Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-55064 of 2007 titled as Jaspal and others Versus State of Punjab and others.

(2.) Briefly the facts involved in the present case are that an FIR was registered on 08.12.1998 at Police Station Balachaur under Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation, challan was presented against the petitioners in the revision petition. A trial was held and all three revision petitioners were convicted and sentenced by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Balachaur, on 05.11.2001, Yashpal under Sections 419 , 420 , 465 , 468 IPC for three years and under Section 471 for two years, Jagan Nath under Sections 419 , 420 , 468 read with Section 34 IPC for three years and under Sections 465 and 471 read with Section 34 IPC for two years and Bihari Lal under Sections 419 , 420 , 468 read with Section 34 IPC for three years and under Sections 465 and 471 read with Section 34 IPC for two years. In the appeal preferred by the petitioners, the judgment passed by learned trial Court was upheld and the appeal was dismissed. It is against the dismissal of their appeal on 14.07.2003 that the present revision petitions have been preferred.

(3.) It would not be out of way to mention here that during the pendency of the revision petitions and while the civil suit which was preferred by the complainant was pending that a compromise has been entered into between the parties on 08.11.2007 and on the basis of the said compromise, Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-55064 of 2007 has been preferred for quashing of the FIR, wherein the compromise has been placed on record. During the pendency of the Criminal Miscellaneous petition on 22.07.2016, Head Constable Lakhwinder Singh, Police Station Balachaur, had appeared in Court and on his instructions, the State counsel submitted that the parties have compromised the matter. On 03.11.2016, complainant-Mangal Singh along with Bahdur Singh as well as Jaspal had appeared in person and reiterated that a compromise has been entered into and the counsel for the petitioner had sought time to file a fresh affidavit relating to the compromise arrived at between the parties. Criminal Miscellaneous No.36405 of 2016 was preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for placing on record the affidavit of Mangal Singh and Bahadur Singh-complainant reiterating the fact that a compromise has been entered into between the parties which application was allowed on 23.11.2016 by this Court. On the basis of the said compromise, counsel for the petitioners prays for allowing the revision petitions and for quashing of the FIR registered against the petitioners.