AAP MLA Manjinder Singh Lalpura was among the convicts acquitted after the Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside a 2025 judgment of conviction and sentence and quashed a 2013 FIR on the basis of a compromise between the parties.
Allowing the petition, Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya quashed the judgment of conviction dated September 10, 2025, and the orders of sentence dated September 12 and 22, 2025, along with FIR No. 69 dated March 4, 2013, registered at Police Station City Tarn Taran under Sections 323, 354, 506 read with Sections 148 and 149 IPC and provisions of the SC/ST Act.
The petitioners, including Lalpura, were acquitted of all charges “for all intents and purposes”.
The case had led to multiple criminal appeals before the High Court, including one filed by Lalpura, which were pending adjudication when the parties entered into a compromise dated February 4, 2026.
The court recorded that the settlement was verified by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tarn Taran, who reported it to be “without any pressure, coercion or undue influence”. It was also noted that the petitioners had no criminal antecedents and had not been declared proclaimed offenders.
Counsel for the state and the complainant admitted the compromise and stated they had no objection to the quashing of the conviction, sentence and FIR.
Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the Bench observed that even in non-compoundable offences, “the judgment of conviction can be set aside by the Court in exercise of its inherent powers to secure the ends of justice” where parties have resolved their dispute.
On the nature of the case, the court found it to be “of predominantly private nature” and added: “The offences alleged are not heinous in nature and cannot be termed as crime against the society; nor do they show mental depravity of the petitioners.”
The bench also noted that the incident was over 13 years old and “nothing untoward has happened between the parties thereafter,” concluding that continuation of proceedings would “hamper their peaceful co-existence even after resolution of disputes.”
