IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 204 I. CRR-1780-2007 (O&M) Nirdosh Kumar and Others …..Pe..oners Vs. State of Punjab .….Respondent II. CRR-302-2008 (O&M) Nirdosh Kumar …..Pe..oner Vs. Joginder Nath and Others .….Respondents Date of Decision : 09.05.2025 CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- None for the peoners. Mr. Animesh Sharma, Addl. AG, Punjab. (through Video Conferencing). **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) These two revisions have arisen out of different judgments of the Courts below, pertaining to the same occurrence but with cross- versions of two compeng pares. 2. As the paper-books of the two revisions would reveal that in an occurrence, which took place on 13.05.1989, the two pares caused injuries to each other. FIR No.61 dated 14.05.1989 was registered at Police Staon Dhariwal under Secons 326 and 324 read with Secon 34 of the IPC on the complaint of Manoj Kumar. The cross-version was recorded on the compliant of Vijay Kumar. From one side, Joginder Nath son of Nathu Ram; and Manoj Kumar son of Joginder Nath sustained injuries. From other side, Nirdosh Kumar & Vijay Kumar sustained injuries. Both the sides were separately tried. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.12 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1780-2007 (O&M) CRR-302-2008 (O&M) -2- 3. In criminal case No.40 of 1998 (RBT No.129 of 1999), accused Nirdosh Kumar, Ashok Kumar, Vipan Kumar and Vijay Kumar faced trial. Though, Vipan Kumar was acqui>ed but the other three namely, Nirdosh, Ashok and Vijay were convicted by learned ACJM, Gurdaspur under Secons 326 and 324 read with Secon 34 IPC vide judgment dated 13.03.2002. They were sentenced as under: 326/34 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of Six months + fine of ₹500/- 324/34 Rigorous imprisonment for a period of Six months The substanve sentences were directed to run concurrently. 4. Against the abovesaid convicon, the convicts Nirdosh, Ashok and Vijay filed appeal but the same was dismissed by learned Addional Sessions Judge, Ad hoc, Gurdaspur on 14.09.2007. 5. Against the dismissal of the appeal, these three convicts have now filed civil revision No.1780 of 2007. 6. On the other hand, in criminal case No.43 of 1999 (RBT No.70 of 1999), four accused namely Joginder Nath, Tarlok Kumar, Vijay Kumar and Manoj Kumar faced trial. Vide judgment dated 13.03.2002, learned ACJM Gurdaspur, though acqui>ed Tarlok Kumar but the other three accused i.e., Joginder Nath, Manoj Kumar and Vijay Kumar were convicted for commiEng the offences under Secons 324 and 323 read with Secon 34 IPC. Though Joginder Nath was directed to be released on probaon but the other two convicts namely, Vijay & Manoj were sentenced as under: 324/34 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of Six months + fine of ₹500/- 323/34 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of Six months The substanve sentences were directed to run concurrently. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.12 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1780-2007 (O&M) CRR-302-2008 (O&M) -3- 7. In the criminal appeal filed by above convicts Joginder Nath, Vijay Kumar and Manoj Kumar, all three of them were acqui>ed by learned Addional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur vide judgment dated 14.09.2007 by seEng aside their convicon and sentence. 8. Against the aforesaid acqui>al, Nirdosh Kumar of the opposite party has filed Civil Revision No.302 of 2008. 9. Ma>er has since been compromised between the pares. CM- 12377-2019 has been moved in CR-1780-2007 tled “Nirdosh Kumar and Others v. State of Punjab” so as to place on record death cerficate of one of injured Joginder Nath and also to place on record the compromise dated 06.04.2019. It is stated in the applicaon that it is a case of version and cross-version; that both pares are neighbours and that during pendency of the revisions, the two pares have reached at a compromise with the intervenon of respectables of village for the peace and harmony among themselves. One of the injured Joginder Nath had already expired as per death cerficate (Annexure A-2) and so, the compromise (Annexure A-1) be accepted. 10. Perusal of the compromise (Annexure A-1) would reveal that it is duly signed by Nirdosh Kumar, Vijay Kumar and Ashok Kumar i.e., peoners of this case; besides Manoj Kumar son of injured Joginder Nath; and other injured Vijay Kumar. Annexure A-2 is the copy of death cerficate revealing that injured Joginder Nath had expired on 21.10.2016. 11. Nobody for the peoners is appearing today. 12. Learned State counsel has no objecon to allow the applicaon. 13. Having noced all the above said facts and circumstances and NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.12 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1780-2007 (O&M) CRR-302-2008 (O&M) -4- parcularly, the fact that occurrence had taken place way back in May, 1989 i.e., 36 years ago, in which both the pares had sustained injuries, the applicaon is accepted. The compromise (Annexure A-1) placed on record before this Court between the peoners Nirdosh, Ashok and Vijay; and the injured is allowed and they are permi>ed to compound the offence. 14. Consequent thereto, the revision (CR No: 1780-2007) is allowed and all the three peoners are acqui>ed of the charge in view of provisions of Secon 320(8) Cr.P.C [Secon 359(8) of BNSS, 2023], by seEng aside the convicon and sentence passed by the courts below. 15. As far as CR-302-2008 filed by Nirdosh Kumar is concerned against the acqui>al of the respondents of that case i.e., Joginder Nath, Vijay Kumar and Manoj Kumar, the said revision is held to have become infructuous on account of the compromise having been effected between the pares. 16. Disposed of. 17. Any other pending applicaon in either of the two peons also stand disposed of. A photocopy of this order be placed on the connected case file. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE May 09, 2025 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.12 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document