Gujarat High Court
Sanjay Harishabhai Panjwani & vs State Of Gujarat & on 29 July, 2015
R/CR.RA/292/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER
PASSED BY SUBORDINATE COURT) No. 292 of 2015
==============================================================
SANJAY HARISHABHAI PANJWANI & 1....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
==============================================================
Appearance:
MR NASIR SAIYED, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 2
ADITYA A GUPTA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR AR GUPTA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
Ms HANSA PUNANI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==============================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE SONIA
GOKANI 29th July 2015
ORAL ORDER
This Criminal Revision Application preferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure arises from the judgment and order dated 31st January 2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandhinagar in Criminal Case No. 13737 of 2010, which eventually was affirmed by the order dated 4th March 2014 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2014.
This Court, vide Order dated 19th June 2015, suspended the sentence of conviction awarded by the Page 1 of 5 HC-NIC Page 1 of 5 Created On Mon Sep 07 04:39:21 IST 2015 R/CR.RA/292/2015 ORDER Court below, while enlarging the applicants on regular bail.
Today, learned advocates appearing for the parties have presented a settlement agreement dated 29th July 2015 on the record of this matter. Since this Criminal Revision Application was the result of matrimonial discord, both the sides have chosen to amicably settle their disputes with the intervention of friends and relatives.
Applicants-husband and the mother-in-law as well as respondent no. 2-wife are present before this Court. They have informed that the settlement agreement which has been arrived at by and between the parties is made with the consent of the parties to bring an end to the discord of matrimonial disputes without any influence, force or fear. Both the parties are living separately since April 2010 and there has been no co-habitation since then. The respondent-wife states that has not begotten any child out of the said wedlock nor she is pregnant at present. The respondent husband has already given her belongings which includes personal articles and jewellery so also her shreedhan. Neither side has any claim to be made in Page 2 of 5 HC-NIC Page 2 of 5 Created On Mon Sep 07 04:39:21 IST 2015 R/CR.RA/292/2015 ORDER respect of their belongings from each other. It has also been decided that towards permanent alimony, wife shall be paid an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/= and she has foregone all her rights in relation to the immovable properties owned by the applicant-husband. As the parties have chosen to compromise, an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/= needs to be paid once this compromise is recorded in the present proceedings and the remaining amount of Rs. 5,00,000/= when an application is jointly moved for mutual divorce under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The said Settlement Agreement dated 29th July 2015 duly signed and notorized is being taken on the record.
As the parties are present before this Court, they have been specifically questioned in relation to the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement. They both have agreed that without any duress, compulsion or coercion, they have chosen to enter into the settlement, which is made for better future of both the sides, and so as to bring an end to the disputes which continued for a long time in their matrimonial life.
As per the law, offence under Section 498A IPC is not Page 3 of 5 HC-NIC Page 3 of 5 Created On Mon Sep 07 04:39:21 IST 2015 R/CR.RA/292/2015 ORDER compoundable, however, effect of compromise can only be taken into consideration while awarding the sentence. Therefore, in light of the decisions of the Apex Court rendered in case of Ramachandra Singh v. State of Bihar [Criminal Appeal No. 419 of 2002 :: Decided on 22nd March 2002] as well as the one in case of Badal Bed v. State of Assam rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 511 of 2000 decided on 2nd March, 2006, ends of justice would be fully met, if the sentence of imprisonment awarded against the applicants is reduced to the period already undergone.
In the instant case, since this being essentially a matter arising from personal disputes, which both the sides are choosing to put an end to, this Court allows compounding offences. Moreover, the parties have also decided to dissolve their marital tie by seeking a decree of divorce and they shall also present a petition before the appropriate Court seeking mutual divorce.
In light of these facts and circumstances of the case, prayer for compounding offences by way of Settlement Page 4 of 5 HC-NIC Page 4 of 5 Created On Mon Sep 07 04:39:21 IST 2015 R/CR.RA/292/2015 ORDER Agreement dated 29th July 2015 is allowed on condition that the terms of compromise shall be duly complied with. The compromise prayer stood allowed.
The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandhinagar in Criminal Case No. 13737 of 2010 and affirmed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2014 are hereby set-aside, in view of the Settlement Agreement dated 29th July 2015 arrived between the parties.
Criminal Revision Application stands disposed of. The sentence of imprisonment awarded against the revisionists stands reduced to the period already undergone. Rule nisi made absolute to the extent above with no order as to costs.
{Ms. Sonia Gokani, J.} Prakash* Page 5 of 5 HC-NIC Page 5 of 5 Created On Mon Sep 07 04:39:21 IST 2015