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 :::