SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Gurcharan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 26 February, 2018

CRR-1767-2017(OM) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CRR-1767-2017(OM)
Date of decision:-26.2.2018

Gurcharan Singh
…Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab
…Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.MADAAN

Present: Mr.N.S. Dadwal, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr.Ramandeep Sandhu, Sr.D.A.G., Punjab.

****

H.S. MADAAN, J.

Accused Gurcharan Singh booked in FIR No.85 dated

4.8.2013 for the offences under Sections 406/420 IPC, registered with

Police Station Sandaur was tried by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,

Malerkotla, who vide judgment dated 6.1.2017 convicted and sentenced

him as under:

Under Section Sentence
420 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of

Rs.1,000/- in default of fine, the accused is liable
to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of two
months.

406 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for two years.

1 of 5
04-03-2018 04:44:33 :::
CRR-1767-2017(OM) -2-

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Feeling dissatisfied with the said judgment of his conviction

and sentence, the accused brought an appeal before the Court of Sessions,

which was assigned to Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, who vide

judgment dated 15.4.2017 set aside the conviction of accused for the

offence under Section 406 IPC, whereas upheld it as regards offence

under Section 420 IPC. He had modified the sentence part observing that

purpose of sentence shall be served if the appellant/accused complies with

the following order by appearance before the learned Trial Court on or

before 15.5.2017:

(1) the appellant-accused will deposit an amount of

Rs.80,000/- for payment as compensation to Sukhdev

Singh son of Jang Singh resident of Sandaur, Jagsir

Singh son of Raj Singh, resident of village Farwahi

Police Station Sandaur, Baljinder Singh son of Balwant

Singh resident of Gurbax Pura, Police Station Sherpur,

Ranjit Singh son of Dalbara Singh, resident of Dhaula,

Police Station Tapa, District Barnala in equal shares;

(2) Will execute the bond of probation in the sum of

Rs.20,000/- for a period of one year with the

undertaking that he shall be of good behavior and shall

not repeat such an offence again;

(3) the fine already paid by him shall stand converted to

the costs of litigation;

2 of 5
04-03-2018 04:44:34 :::
CRR-1767-2017(OM) -3-

(4) failing which the appellant-accused under Section 420

IPC will undergo the sentence of Rigorous

imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of

Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine for further

Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two months.

The fine has already been paid by the appellant-

accused in the Trial Court on 6.1.2017. The period of

custody already passed by the appellant-accused in this

case shall be set off with the period of substantive

sentence.

With that the appeal was disposed of.

The petitioner has filed the revision petition challenging the

judgment passed by the trial Court as well as Appellate Court stating that

the Courts below have failed to consider the fact that with the intervention

of respectable persons of both the parties, the matter was settled amicably

and in that regard, a compromise dated 31.10.2013 was executed, duly

signed by the parties; that the complainant had also furnished an affidavit

dated 14.11.2013 that all the matters had been sorted out and this is so

mentioned in the order granting regular bail to the petitioner; that he had

moved a petition in this Court for quashing of FIR on the basis of

compromise wherein while issuing notice of motion, parties were directed

to get their statements recorded before the Illaqa Magistrate; that the

parties had accordingly got their statements recorded; that report was sent

by the Court concerned, however, the Court had dismissed the petition on

3 of 5
04-03-2018 04:44:34 :::
CRR-1767-2017(OM) -4-

the ground that as the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC were

compoundable, the parties may approach the trial Court but when the

parties appeared before the trial Court, the complainant backed out of the

compromise, therefore, the trial commenced and petitioner was convicted

and sentenced; that in the trial Court, the accused had examined Manjit

Singh as DW1, an attesting witness of the compromise to prove the

compromise but the Courts below did not pay any attention towards that.

Learned counsel for the revisionist had advanced arguments

on these very lines.

Whereas, learned State counsel has opposed the revision

petition saying that before the trial Court, the prosecution had led

evidence so had the accused and thereafter the trial Court came to the

conclusion that the prosecution had successfully proved its charge against

the accused for the offences under Section 420 and 406 IPC, therefore, he

was convicted and no fault can be found with the judgments passed by the

Courts below.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that as per

own case of the revisionist, the complainant did not stick to the

compromise before the trial Court or in the Appellate Court. Merely at the

asking of the revisionist/convict, it cannot be accepted that compromise

had in fact taken place. If the complainant does not come forward and

admit the compromise before this Court, it is to be taken that no such

compromise is there. Furthermore, the complainant has not complied with

the directions issued by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur in

judgment dated 15.4.2017. He has failed to deposit an amount of

4 of 5
04-03-2018 04:44:34 :::
CRR-1767-2017(OM) -5-

Rs.80,000/- on or before 15.5.2017, therefore, the default clause would

come into operation and 50% of the amount so deposited by him was

beyond that date, which does not save him from the default clause.

In view of the above, I find no illegality or infirmity in the

impugned judgment passed by the Court below and the revision is found

to be without any merit and is dismissed accordingly.

Necessary information be sent to the quarter concerned.

26.2.2018 (H.S.MADAAN)
Brij JUDGE

Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

5 of 5
04-03-2018 04:44:34 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please CLICK HERE to read Group Rules, If You agree then JOIN HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DVACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA24, 125 CrPc, 307, 313, 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509 etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh