← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/31345/2017disposed of

Arvind v. State Of Haryana And ANR.

2017-12-11Mr. Justice Mahavir Singh Chauhan4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-31345 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.12.2017.

Arvind Kumar Sapra ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and another ... Respondents CORAM :

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Chauhan Present :

Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate for Mr. Manoj Kumar Taya, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Arun Kumar, AAG Haryana.

None for respondent No.2.

JITENDRA CHAUHAN.J.

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing of FIR No.196 dated 24.03.2010 registered under Sections 498-A, 406 and 323 IPC, at Police Station City Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar and for setting aside the judgment dated 17.08.2016 and order dated 22.08.2016 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-3).

Vide order dated 24.08.2017 the parties were directed to appear before the Appellate Court, for getting their statements recorded. In compliance thereof, report of Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri dated 14.09.2017, has been received,

wherein, it has been noticed that the compromise between the parties is genuine, voluntary and reached without any pressure and undue influence.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on (i) Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543; (ii) Sube Singh and another vs. State of Haryana and another (2013) 4 RCR (Criminal) 102 (DB) and; (iii) Vinod Kumar Ohri and others vs. State of Punjab and another CRM M-10970 of 2017 decided on September 18, 2017, to contend that the FIR can be quashed even after the conviction has been recorded by the trial Court. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that after a judgment of conviction has been passed, the FIR cannot be quashed.

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Manohar Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2014 (3) RCR 685 has held as under:- "In this case, the appellant is convicted under Section 498-A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo six months imprisonment. He is convicted under Section 4 of the Dowry Act and sentenced to undergo six months imprisonment. Substantive sentences are to run concurrently. Even though the appellant and respondent No. 2-wife have arrived at a compromise, the order of conviction cannot be quashed on that

ground because the offences involved are non compoundable. However, in such a situation if the court feels that the parties have a real desire to bury the hatchet in the interest of peace, it can reduce the sentence of the accused to the sentence already undergone. Section 498-A of the IPC does not prescribe any minimum punishment. Section 4 of the Dowry Act prescribes minimum punishment of six months but proviso thereto states that the Court may, for adequate or special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term which may be less than six months. Therefore, sentence of the appellant can be reduced to sentence already undergone by him."

Hence, in view of the report of Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, dated 14.09.2017 made in pursuance of the order dated 24.08.2017 passed by this Court, and the guidelines laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, this Court feels that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings alive. It will be in the interest of justice, if the settlement reached between the parties is accepted.

In the circumstances, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 17.08.2016 is upheld. However, the order of sentence dated 22.08.2016 is modified to the extent that the sentence of the

petitioner is reduced from two years to the period already undergone by him subject to payment of fine of Rs.15,000/-. The amount of fine so deposited shall be paid to the complainant as compensation. In case the payment is not made within two months from today, the present petition would be deemed to be dismissed without any further notice. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Registry is directed to send a copy of the order to respondent No.2.

11.12.2017.

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) SN JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No