Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder Kumar And Anr vs State Of Punjab on 23 December, 2014
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
Crl. Revn No. 3510 of 2014 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Revn No. 3510 of 2014 (O&M)
Date of decision : 23.12.2014
Surinder Kumar & anr. ......Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Gurveer Sidhu, AAG, Punjab
Mr. G.S. Rawat, Advocate
for the complainant.
***
RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral)
Challenge is to the judgment dated 19.1.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, whereby the petitioners were convicted under Sections 420/120-B IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment substantially for a period of three years; judgment dated 09.10.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Judge, affirming the conviction and sentence given by the trial Court.
GAURAV 2014.12.23 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Revn No. 3510 of 2014 (O&M) -2-
The F.I.R was registered on the statement given by Narinder Singh stating therein that the accused Surinder Kumar alongwith his wife Sunita used to visit the house of Joginder Pal, friend of Tarsem Singh (father of the complainant). One day, the complainant along with his father went to the house of Joginder Pal where they met the petitioners/accused who assured them that they are engaged in sending the people to England. Thereafter, the accused made a call to the complainant that they can send him to England and he has to pay Rs.8,00,000/- to them. The complainant was called at Ganesh Sweet Shop, Rama Mandi, Jalandhar Cantt and asked him to pay Rs.2,00,000/- along with his passport and the remaining amount will be taken after procurement of visa. The complainant paid Rs.2,00,000/- along with passport to Surinder Kumar. On 18.11.2005, the complainant received a telephonic call that his visa was procured and he should bring the balance amount of Rs.6,00,000/- at Ganesh Sweet Shop, Rama Mandi, Jalandhar Cantt on the next day. The complainant reached Ganesh Sweet along with Rs.6 lacs which was handed over to him. After some days, the complainant got checked the visa, which was found to be fake. When the complainant asked the accused about this, they assured him GAURAV 2014.12.23 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Revn No. 3510 of 2014 (O&M) -3- that they will send him to Greece and asked him to pay Rs.2 lacs more, which the complainant refused to pay and asked them to return his amount. In January, 2008, the complainant got a telephonic call from the accused that his visa has been procured for Greece and he should reach Delhi along with sum of Rs.2 lacs. He along with his father went to Delhi and gave Rs.2 lacs more to the accused. At the airport, a man of Surinder Kumar took the passport of the complainant. However, when the complainant reached Greece, he was arrested by the police of Greece as he was without passport. The father of the complainant gave a draft of Rs.20,140/- dated 11.04.2008 and the complainant came back to India. In this background, F.I.R was registered against the petitioners.
Now, the matter has been duly compromised between the parties, as per compromise deed dated 02.12.2014 (A-1) and affidavit dated 02.12.2014 of Tarsem Singh (attorney of the complainant) (A-2).
On notice, learned counsel for the complainant has put in appearance and has admitted the factum of compromise. He has tendered the compromise deed, affidavit of Tarsem Singh, special power of attorney given by Narinder Singh (in original) and affidavit of Narinder Singh, GAURAV 2014.12.23 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Revn No. 3510 of 2014 (O&M) -4- which are taken on record as Annexure A-3 to A-4 respectively. Tarsem Singh is present in the Court and has been duly identified by his counsel and has admitted that the matter has been compromised between the parties and now nothing is due from the petitioners and has no objection if the petitioners are released on bail.
Learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the conviction on merits and restrict his prayer to the quantum of sentence qua petitioner. Dupanti (daughter of the petitioners) is also present in the Court and submits that the matter has been compromise between the parties and she had signed the compromise deed on behalf of petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, further contends that the occurrence in this case pertains to the year 2009 and a period of almost 5 years have already gone by. Petitioner has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spinning over a period of time. Learned counsel prays that a lenient view be taken against the petitioner. He further submits that keeping in view the fact that the matter stands compromised between the parties, some lenience by shown against the petitioners in the matter of sentence.
GAURAV 2014.12.23 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Revn No. 3510 of 2014 (O&M) -5-
Keeping in view the above facts, the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 420/120-B IPC is upheld but the sentence of the imprisonment awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone by them. A direction is given that the petitioners be released to the satisfaction of trial Court.
With the above modification in the matter of sentence, the criminal revision is dismissed on merits.
(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE 23.12.2014 G Arora GAURAV 2014.12.23 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document