SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mukesh S/O Sh. Mohan Lala Sharma vs State Of Haryana on 16 July, 2018

CRR No. 2344 of 2015 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRR No. 2344 of 2015
DATE OF DECISION :- July 16, 2018

Mukesh …Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana …Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN

Present:- Mr. Jagpal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gaurav Bansal, AAG, Haryana.
***

Mukesh and his father Mohan Lal, both of them being accused

in F.I.R. 320 dated 14.6.2006 for offences under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC

registered with Police Station City Karnal faced trial by Judicial Magistrate

Ist Class, Karnal on the allegations that complainant Pooja was married with

accused Mukesh on 1.5.2005 and at the time of marriage her parents had

spent a considerable amount giving dowry articles, which formed her

Istridhan but were entrusted to both the accused. However, after the

marriage both the accused committed criminal breach of trust and they had

been harassing and humiliating Pooja so as to force her to bring more dowry

articles. That trial ended in conviction of Mukesh and Mohan Lal and they

were sentenced for those offences as follows vide order dated 20.3.2012 :-

Accused Mukesh

1. Under Section 498-A IPC. Three years SI and to pay a fine of
Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of

1 of 3
22-07-2018 05:26:40 :::
CRR No. 2344 of 2015 2

fine, to under SI for one month.

2. Under Section 406 IPC Three years SI and to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment
of fine, to undergo SI for one month.

Accused Mohan Lal.

1. Under Section 498-A IPC. Three years SI and to pay a fine of
Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of
fine, to under SI for one month.

2. Under Section 406 IPC Three years SI and to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment
of fine, to undergo SI for one month.

Feeling aggrieved, both the accused-convict had preferred an

appeal to the Court of Sessions, which was assigned to Additional Sessions

Judge, Karnal, who vide judgment dated 28.5.2015 accepted the appeal

partly and acquitted Mohan Lal of the charge framed against him, whereas

regarding accused Mukesh, sentenced awarded to him was reduced from

three years to two years respectively for offences under Sections 498-A and

406 IPC, whereas maintaining the fine part intact.

Still feeling aggrieved, Mukesh has filed the present Criminal

Revision Petition before this Court, notice of which was given to the State.

I have learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State

counsel besides going through the record.

At the very outset, learned counsel for the revisionist has

argued that he does not challenge the judgments passed by the Courts below

as regards conviction of the revisionist for offences under Sections 498-A

and 406 IPC though he has got submissions to make with regard to the

sentence which according to him is on higher side. Learned counsel for the

revisionist has submitted that Mukesh was aged about 31 years at the time

2 of 3
22-07-2018 05:26:40 :::
CRR No. 2344 of 2015 3

of conviction; that he does not have any past criminal record; he has already

undergone about 1 year in custody; he has got a family comprising old

parents, wife and two children to look after, as such a lenient view in the

matter be taken.

Considering the circumstances explained by counsel for

revisionist and in view of the fact that he has undergone total sentence of 9

months and 5 days of imprisonment as per custody certificate place on

record by the State counsel, I am of the view that ends of justice shall be

adequately met if, while maintaining the conviction of the accused-

revisionist for offence under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, his sentence is

reduced to one already undergone by him in this case while keeping the fine

part intact. It is ordered accordingly. The fine is said to have been deposited.

With such modification, the judgments passed by the Courts

below are set aside. The Criminal Revision Petition stands disposed of.

(H.S. MADAAN)
JUDGE
July 16, 2018
p.singh

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether Reportable Yes/No

3 of 3
22-07-2018 05:26:40 :::

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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 read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation