Crl. Revision No. 2119 of 2012 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

Crl. Revision No. 2119 of 2012 (OM)
Date of Decision: 03.04.2018
***

Harbans Singh
.. Petitioner
Vs.

State of Haryana
.. Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY

Present:- Mr. Jagjit Singh Gill, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Ms. Mahima Yashpal, AAG Haryana.

Mr. M.S. Sidhu, Advocate
for the complainant.

***

ANITA CHAUDHRY, J.

Through the instant petition, the petitioner is laying challenge

to the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below.

The petitioner was tried for commission of offence punishable

under Sections 354 and 452 IPC on the allegations that he entered the house

of the complainant and tried to outrage the modesty of his mother and

harassed them.

The learned Magistrate held him guilty under Sections 354 and

452 IPC and awarded a substantive sentence of two years and fine of

Rs.2000/- under both the heads vide judgment dated 13.02.2010

The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the

appellate Court vide judgment dated 10.07.2012.

1 of 3
10-04-2018 10:53:17 :::
Crl. Revision No. 2119 of 2012 2

Dis-satisfied with the same, instant criminal revision has been

filed. The revision petition was admitted and the sentence of the petitioner

was suspended on 15.11.2012.

It has been contended that the parties have arrived at a

compromise. Compromise-deed (Annexure P-4) was placed on record. The

report of the Court below was sought regarding genuineness of the

compromise. It has been reported that the compromise effected between the

parties is genuine, with free consent and without any pressure. Statements of

parties have also been recorded.

The petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Sections 452

and 354 IPC, which are non-compoundable. In Hasi Mohan Barman

Anr. Vs. State of Assam Anr. 2008(1) RCR (Criminal) 70 and Ishwar

Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2009(1) RCR (Criminal) 1, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that where the parties are

compounding the offence, which was not compoundable the findings of

acquittal cannot be recorded in favour of the accused and the permission to

compound could not be ordered by ignoring the statutory provision, but the

factum of compromise could be taken into consideration for reducing the

sentence.

The incident pertains to the year 2007. At that time and before

the amendment in Section 354 IPC, no minimum punishment was provided

and maximum imprisonment for seven years has been provided for offence

under Section 452 IPC. It was pointed out that the petitioner had remained

in custody for little more than four months and had paid the fine amount.

The petitioner has already undergone the agony of protracted

trial as well as appeal for more than 10 years. Therefore, in view of the

2 of 3
10-04-2018 10:53:23 :::
Crl. Revision No. 2119 of 2012 3

settlement having arrived at between both the parties, the order of

conviction of the petitioner is upheld. However, the sentence awarded to

him, as mentioned above, is reduced to the one already undergone by him.

With the above modification, the instant revision petition

stands disposed of.

April 03, 2018 (ANITA CHAUDHRY)
Jiten JUDGE

Whether speaking/ reasoned Yes/ No

Whether reportable Yes/ No

3 of 3
10-04-2018 10:53:23 :::