SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sukhpal Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab on 27 September, 2018

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 :::

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