::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (226) CRR-1829-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:05.09.2025 Ramandeep Kaur ... .Appellant Versus State of Haryana and anr. . ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Ramnish Puri, Advocate, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vipul Sherwal, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Intizar-Ul- Hassan, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. The present revision petition has been filed impugning the judgment dated 18.07.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal whereby the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12/13.12.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal dismissed the appeal while upholding the conviction of the appellant-petitioner under Sections 170, 171, 419 and 420 IPC acquitted her of the charge under Section 406 IPC. SUKHPREET KAUR 2025.09.05 23:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh ::2:: 2. The FIR in the present case came to be registered on 29.11.2013. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence was passed on 12/13.12.2017. The appeal filed against the judgment of conviction came to be dismissed with modification on 18.07.2025 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal. This revision petition was filed on 28.07.2025 and has come up for final hearing now i.e. after a period of almost 12 years having elapsed from the date of the filing of the FIR. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-Ramandeep Kaur came to be convicted by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.12.2017/13.12.2027 as under:- Offences Imprisonment Fine In default of the payment of fine U/S 170 IPC RI for 02 years Rs.2,000/- SI for 15 days U/S 171 IPC SI 03 months Rs.200/- SI 01 day U/S 406 IPC RI 03 years Rs.3,000/- SI 20 days U/S 419 IPC RI 03 years Rs.3,000/- SI 20 days U/S 420 IPC RI 03 years Rs.3,000/- SI 20 days All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 4. The accused-petitioner filed an appeal which came to be dismissed while upholding her conviction under Sections 170, 171, 419 and 420 IPC, though, she was acquitted of the offence under Section 406 IPC vide a judgment dated 18.07.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal. SUKHPREET KAUR 2025.09.05 23:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh ::3:: 5. The aforesaid judgments are under challenge in the instant revision petition. 6. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. The entire disputed amount of Rs.3,28,000/- has been paid to the respondent No.2/complainant-Sajid Khan. Therefore, he prays that the sentence of the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2/complainant-Sajid Khan does not dispute the factual position that a compromise has been arrived at and a sum of Rs.3,28,000/- has been paid to the respondent No.2- complainant. 8. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has placed on record a custody certificate dated 18.08.2025 of the accused-petitioner as per which she has undergone actual sentence of 05 months and 08 days out of her substantive sentence of 03 years. He contends that the petitioner has been rightly convicted for the offences in question and her sentence ought not be reduced to the period already undergone by her. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 10. Keeping in view the nature of the allegations levelled against the accused-petitioner, I do not find any infirmity in the judgments of the Courts below. Therefore, the present petition is dismissed. SUKHPREET KAUR 2025.09.05 23:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh ::4:: 11. However, in view of the fact that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties and a sum of Rs.3,28,000/- has been paid by the accused-petitioner to the complainant-respondent No.2, while upholding the conviction of the accused-petitioner, her sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by her i.e. 05 months and 08 days. However, the payment of fine and sentence in default of payment of fine shall remain intact. 12. The pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of accordingly. (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE September 05, 2025 sukhpreet Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No SUKHPREET KAUR 2025.09.05 23:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh