Delhi High Court
Narinder Kumar vs State, Nct Of Delhi on 28 May, 2012
Author: Pratibha Rani
Bench: Pratibha Rani
$~25
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 28th May, 2012
+ CRL.REV.P. 720/2004
NARINDER KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through : Petitioner in person.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through : Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for
State.
Complainant in person alongwith
her father.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
PRATIBHA RANI, J. (ORAL)
1. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 17.12.2004 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, vide which the order dated 19.04.2003 passed by learned MM convicting him under Section 498-A IPC, was maintained, however period of sentence was reduced from one year to four months.
2. The case FIR No.777/95 under Sections 498-A/406 IPC was got registered by complainant Mamta against her husband i.e. petitioner Narinder Kumar and other family members for treating her with cruelty and harassing her for bringing more dowry. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed Crl.Rev.P. 720/2004 Page 1 of 5 in the Court. After trial, petitioner was convicted by learned M.M. for committing the offence punishable under Section 498- A IPC. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner preferred the appeal. The Appellate Court while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, reduced the substantive sentence from one year to 4 months. Still dissatisfied, this revision petition has been preferred before this Court.
3. During the course of hearing of the instant revision petition, on 08.05.2012 it is submitted by counsel for both the parties that the petitioner and complainant had arrived at an understanding that the substantive sentence of four months awarded to the petitioner after holding him guilty under Section 498-A IPC may be waived by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner also stated that the petitioner has agreed to give Rs.75,000/- to the complainant to compensate her for the cruel treatment meted out to her by the petitioner, which is also acceptable to the complainant.
4. On behalf of State, it has been submitted that in view of the judgment of Apex Court in Gulab Das & Ors. vs. State of M.P. AIR 2012 Supreme Court 888, appropriate orders may be passed by this Court.
5. In the above noted case, the appellant No.1 Gulab Das, Appellant No.2 Chetan were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 323 IPC. However, appellant No.2 Chetan was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 307 IPC. All the appellants challenged their conviction before the High Court of Madhya Crl.Rev.P. 720/2004 Page 2 of 5 Pradesh at Jabalpur which failed and consequently the matter reached the Supreme Court as SLP was filed by the appellants.
6. During the pendency of appeal before the Supreme Court, the appellants and the complainant arrived at an amicable settlement and prayed for compounding of the offence. While disposing of the appeal, the Apex Court, though declined the prayer for compromise and maintained the conviction of the appellants, but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellants in view of compromise arrived at between the parties. The legal position in such a situation has been discussed in paras 7, 8 and 9 of the said decision and reproduced as under:-
"7. In the light of the submissions made at the bar the only question that falls for determination is whether the prayer for composition of the offence under Section 307 IPC could be allowed having regard to the compromise arrived between the parties. Our answer is in the negative. This Court has in a long line of decisions ruled that offences which are not compoundable under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed to be compounded even if there is any settlement between the complainant on the one hand and the accused on the other. Reference in this regard may be made to the decisions of this Court in Ram Lal and Anr. vs. State of J & K (1999) 2 SCC 213: (AIR 1999 SC 895), and Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2008) 15 SCC 667: (AIR 2009 SC 675). We have, therefore, no hesitation in rejecting the prayer for permission to compound the offence for which Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 stand convicted.
8. Having said that we are of the view that the settlement/compromise arrived at between the parties can be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the quantum of sentence to be awarded to the appellants. That is precisely the approach which this Court has adopted in the cases referred above. Even when the prayer for composition has been declined this Court has in the two cases mentioned above taken the fact of settlement between the parties into consideration while dealing with the quantum of sentence. Apart from the fact that a settlement has taken place between the parties, there are few other circumstances that persuade us to interfere on the question Crl.Rev.P. 720/2004 Page 3 of 5 of sentence awarded to the appellants. The incident in question had taken place in the year 1994. The parties are related to each other. Both Appellant Nos.2 and 3 were at the time of the incident in their twenties. It is also noteworthy that the incident had led to registration of a cross-case against the complainant party in which the trial Court has already convicted Veeraji and others for offences punishable under Sections 325/34 and 323 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.300/- and imprisonment of six months under Section 323 IPC. We are told that the parties having settled the matter, will approach the High Court for an appropriate order in the appeal pending before it. Moreso, the appellants have already served substantial part of the sentence awarded to them.
9. In the totality of the circumstances we are of the view that the settlement arrived at between the parties is a sensible step that will benefit the parties, give quietus to the controversy and rehabilitate and normalize the relationship between them.
7. In the case in hand, the petitioner was convicted under Section 498-A IPC by learned vide order dated 19.04.2003 and he was sentenced vide order dated 22.04.2003 to undergo RI for one year with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for one month. Feeling aggrieved from the above conviction and sentence, he filed an appeal before the Court of Sessions and vide order dated 17.12.2004 his conviction was maintained, however, period of sentence was reduced to four months. Petitioner also felt aggrieved from the order dated 17.12.2004 passed by the Court of Sessions, hence this appeal.
8. During the pendency of this appeal, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement and as agreed by the parties, petitioner has paid Rs.75,000/- in cash to the complainant in the Court towards compensation. Complainant also states that she has received Rs.75,000/- from the petitioner and she has Crl.Rev.P. 720/2004 Page 4 of 5 no objection if the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. It is stated by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already deposited the fine amount of Rs.500/- as imposed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, while upholding the conviction of the petitioner, the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
9. The revision petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent and the impugned order dated 17.12.2004 passed by learned ASJ is partially modified. Revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.
10. Dasti.
PRATIBHA RANI, J MAY 28, 2012 'st' Crl.Rev.P. 720/2004 Page 5 of 5