CRR No. 1859 of 2016 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR No. 1859 of 2016
DATE OF DECISION :- August 03, 2018
Pat Ram …Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another …Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN
Present:- Ms. Simranjeet Kaur, Advocate
for Mr.Vivek Goel, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Nitin Rampal, Advocate for respondent no.2.
Ms. Samina Dhir, DAG, Punjab.
***
Complainant Sukhpal Kaur had filed a complaint under
Sections 452, 379, 354, 323, 427, 34 IPC against accused Pat Ram on the
allegations that on 3.4.2010 at about 11. A.M., complainant Sukhpal Kaur
was present at her house at Bala Patti Grid, Basti Nathana, District Bathinda
then accused trespassed in her house while he was under the influence of
liquor and he molested her.
After recording of preliminary evidence, accused was
summoned. He put in appearance. After recording of pre charge evidence,
formal charge for offence under Sections 452, 354 IPC was framed against
him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The accused subjected
complainant Sukhpal Kaur to further cross-examination.
1 of 3
12-08-2018 14:41:56 :::
CRR No. 1859 of 2016 2
Thereafter, statement of accused was recorded under Section
313 Cr.P.C. He denied all the allegations contending that in an enquiry
conducted by ASI Sukhmander Singh he was declared innocent. He has led
evidence in defence there. After hearing arguments, learned Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda convicted him for offence under Section 451,
354 IPC vide judgment dated 4.7.2015 and in terms of the order of even
date sentenced him as follows :-
Name of Convict Offence convicted Sentence
1. Convict Patt Ram U/s 451 IPC Rigorous imprisonment
for a period of one year
and fine Rs.100/-. In
default of payment of
fine further R.I. for a
period of 15 days.
U/s 354 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment
for a period of one year.
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Feeling aggrieved, he had preferred appeal to the Court of
Sessions, which was assigned to Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda but
the same was dismissed vide order dated 4.5.2016. Still feeling dissatisfied,
he has filed Criminal Revision Petition before this Court, notice of which
was given to the respondents.
During the course of pendency of Criminal Revision Petition,
the parties have entered into a compromise. Statement of complainant
Sukhpal Kaur has been recorded by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda
in terms of order passed by this Court.
As per report received from Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Bathinda, compromise between the parties appears to be genuine,
2 of 3
12-08-2018 14:41:56 :::
CRR No. 1859 of 2016 3
voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence.
Under Section 320 Cr.P.C. offence under Section 354 IPC is
compoundable by the women assaulted to whom the criminal force was
used whereas offence under Section 451 IPC is compoundable by the person
in possession of the house trespassed upon. Of course, that can be done with
permission of the Court. Here the complainant, who is also owner of the
house has compounded the offence under Section 354, 451 IPC with the
accused. Necessary permission is granted to her to do so since the
settlement between the complainant and accused is in the interest of peace
and tranquility in the society. Section 320 Sub Section 6 Cr.P.C. provides
that the High Court or Court of Session acting in power of Revision under
Section 401 Cr.P.C. may allow any person to compound any offence which
such person is bound to compound under this Section.
Therefore, while granting necessary permission, the Criminal
Revision Petition is accepted, the judgments of conviction and sentence
passed by the Courts below are set aside. Resultantly, the revisionist is
acquitted of the charges framed against him.
(H.S. MADAAN)
JUDGE
August 03, 2018
p.singh
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
12-08-2018 14:41:56 :::
