Crl. Rev. No. 2648 of 2012 (OM) . -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Rev. No. 2648 of 2012 (OM)
Date of decision : 27.09.2018
Sukhpal Singh and another
…… Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab Anr.
… Respondents
CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY
Present: Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate
for the appellants-petitioners.
Ms. Jaspreet Kaur, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Abhishek Arora, Advocate
for respondent no.2-complainant.
—
ANITA CHAUDHRY , J.
The trial of the petitioners in case FIR No. 172 dated
09.09.2002, registered under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC, Police Station
City Mansa, District Mansa culminated in their conviction sentence
vide order dated 01.06.2011, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Mansa. The petitioners were sentenced to undergo undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 02 years along with fine of Rs.3,000/- for
commission of offence under Section 406 IPC. In default of payment of
fine they were to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2
months. They were further sentenced to undergo undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 03 years along with fine of Rs.5,000/- for
commission of offence under Section 498-A IPC. In default of payment of
fine they were to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2
months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
1 of 3
07-10-2018 05:58:31 :::
Crl. Rev. No. 2648 of 2012 (OM) . -2-
The appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa on 25.08.2012.
Aggrieved with the same, the petitioners have preferred the
instant revision petition. During the pendency thereof, it is claimed that the
parties have entered into compromise with the intervention of respectable
persons.
Report has been called from the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Mansa, after statements of the parties were recorded regarding the
compromise. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa has reported that the
compromise is voluntary and without any pressure or coercion. He has also
sent copy of statements of parties along with the report.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that now good
sense has prevailed and parties have decided to settle the dispute by entering
into a compromise and petitioner no.1 and complainant have decided to part
ways regarding which petitioner no.1 and complaint have filed a petition
under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. Copy of the petition filed
under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, reiterating the factum of
compromise has been placed on record. Counsel further urges that all the
parties have also appeared before the CJM, Mansa and have affirmed the
compromise. It is prayed that in view of the compromise, the petitioners
may be acquitted.
Learned counsel appearing for the complainant states that the
complainant has no objection if the petitioners are acquitted.
In view of the above, the applications (CRM-36740-2017
CRM-36741-2017) are allowed and the main petition is taken up on Board
today itself.
2 of 3
07-10-2018 05:58:31 :::
Crl. Rev. No. 2648 of 2012 (OM) . -3-
MAIN CASE
In the instant case, better sense has prevailed to the parties and
they have put an end to their grievance and have settled the dispute with
their free will without any pressure or coercion.
Since the parties have amicably settled their dispute, there is no
legal impediment in granting permission to them to compound the offence.
In view of the statements and report of the CJM, Mansa and the principles
laid down by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh
and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal)
1052, approved by Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab
and others (2012) 10 SCC 303, the instant revision petition is allowed.
Consequently, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Court
below is set aside and the petitioners are acquitted of the charges.
(ANITA CHAUDHRY)
JUDGE
27.09.2018
‘Sunil’
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
07-10-2018 05:58:31 :::
