IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR No.2412 of 2011 (OM)
Date of decision: 1st December, 2018
Gurdeep Singh
… Petitioner
Versus
Amarjeet Kaur @ Kulwinder Kaur another
… Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH
Present: Mr. P.S. Jammu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Brother of respondent No.1 in person.
Mr. Baljinder S. Virk, Dy. Advocate General, Haryana
for the respondent No.2/State.
FATEH DEEP SINGH, J. (ORAL)
This criminal revision by unsuccessful appellant revisionist
Gurdeep Singh against respondents Amarjeet Kaur alias Kulwinder Kaur
and State of Haryana has arisen out of the judgment and order dated
28.09.2011 passed in criminal appeal No.234 of 2010 titled ‘Gurdeep
Singh and another vs. Amarjeet Kaur alias Kulwinder Kaur and another’.
Heard Mr. P.S. Jammu, Advocate for the petitioner;
Mr.Baljinder Singh Virk, Dy. Advocate General, Haryana for respondent
No.2/State and perused the records of the case.
As is there and is well elicited from the records as well as the
arguments of the two sides, Amarjeet Kaur alias Kulwinder Kaur wife of
accused petitioner Gurdeep Singh filed a complaint under Sections 498A,
406, 307, 326, 323, 504, 505, 506 IPC and the Court of learned Judicial
1 of 5
29-12-2018 00:49:46 :::
CRR No.2412 of 2011 (OM) 2
Magistrate 1st Class, Dabwali, through judgment dated 12.01.2010
convicted Gurdeep Singh revisionist besides his co-accused who are not
before this Court, namely Pritam Singh and Harpal Kaur, under Section
498A IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of nine months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of
payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen
days. The same was subject matter of challenge in criminal appeal
detailed above and through impugned judgment dated 28.09.2011 the
Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa partly accepted the appeal bearing
No.234 of 2010 of Gurdeep Singh and another by modifying the order.
The allegations levelled by the complainant Amarjeet Kaur
alias Kulwinder Kaur wife of the present revisionist are that their
marriage was solemnized on 11.02.1993 and no issue could be born out
of the wedlock. It is alleged that at the marriage, the family of the
complainant had given Rs.50,000/- in cash besides dowry articles which
have been duly enumerated. However, it is alleged that the accused used
to taunt her for insufficiency of dowry and also physically abused her
when her family could not afford to give them a car and in spite of
repeated interventions by the respectables and holding of panchayat, the
matter could not be sorted out and it is consequent thereto the present
complaint was filed, in which the accused were summoned under
Sections 498A, 406, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC and after
necessary formalities, charges under Sections 498A, 406, 506 read with
2 of 5
29-12-2018 00:49:47 :::
CRR No.2412 of 2011 (OM) 3
Section 34 IPC were framed against the accused to which they pleaded
not guilty.
In the evidence, the complainant Amarjeet Kaur alias
Kulwinder Kaur herself appeared as PW-1 and examined PW-2 Bhanwar
Lal, PW-3 Angrej Singh and PW-4 Mahender Singh, and thereafter,
closed the evidence. The accused in their statements under Section 313
Cr.P.C. denied the allegations and in their defence examined DW-1
Khem Raj Singh and closed the same. That is how the present conviction
has come about.
At the very onset, the learned counsel for the revisionist
Mr.P.S. Jammu, Advocate has argued that the petitioner husband had
suffered the travails for more than seventeen years after the complaint
was filed in 2001 and had been sentenced only under Section 498A IPC
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months. The only prayer that
has come about from the side of the petitioner is non-considering of his
prayer for his release on probation.
Though on behalf of the respondent/State Mr. Baljinder
Singh Virk, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana assisted by the brother of
complainant/respondent No.1 in person, a stiff opposition is sought to be
made to this prayer on the grounds that the complainant too has suffered
enormously by this callous attitude and misconduct by the accused.
Appreciating the submissions, it is a pure matrimonial
dispute which has taken seventeen years out of the valuable lives of the
3 of 5
29-12-2018 00:49:47 :::
CRR No.2412 of 2011 (OM) 4
couple. The courts below had convicted the petitioner to maximum
rigorous imprisonment for nine months, out of which, as is there in the
stand of the State, petitioner Gurdeep Singh has undergone incarceration
for almost one month; besides the fact that during this period he must
have been under tremendous physical and mental pressure and this
torture of a protracted litigation have lost a long period of 17 years, is
certainly an extenuating circumstance for consideration of a sympathetic
view into the matter. The provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. have been
made purely for a purpose, to curb the first time offender, which the
petitioner is, from becoming hardened criminals and if sent to jail would
certainly get an opportunity to mix with the hardened criminals
wandering away from the main course of life and thus, another societal
problem would come about. Commensurate with the theory of
Reformation, it would sub-serve the ends of justice if the petitioner,
keeping in view his long journey through this legal maze, is given
concession of probation, as the offence is not of heinous nature, in terms
of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 for a period of one
year on his entering into a bond in the sum of `10,000/- with one surety
of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court undertaking
therein that he shall keep peace and maintain good behaviour and shall
appear and receive sentence as and when called upon to do so during the
said period.
4 of 5
29-12-2018 00:49:47 :::
CRR No.2412 of 2011 (OM) 5
However, to assuage the feelings of wrong-done to the
complainant, who too has suffered by this, it would sub-serve the ends of
justice if she is awarded compensation amounting to Rs.20,000/- to be
paid by the petitioner and which compensation shall be pre-condition
which shall be given to the complainant at the time of tendering of
probation bonds.
The petition stands disposed off accordingly.
(FATEH DEEP SINGH)
JUDGE
December 1, 2018
rps
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
29-12-2018 00:49:47 :::