Crl. Revision No. 2119 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
Crl. Revision No. 2119 of 2012 (OM)
Date of Decision: 03.04.2018
State of Haryana
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
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
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)
Whether speaking/ reasoned Yes/ No
Whether reportable Yes/ No
3 of 3
10-04-2018 10:53:23 :::