Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhdev Kumar vs U.T. Chandigarh And Anr on 9 December, 2013
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
Crl. A. No. S-2248-SB of 2013 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. A. No. S-2248-SB of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision : 09.12.2013
Sukhdev Kumar ......Appellant
versus
U.T. Chandigarh and anr. ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. Sandeep Wadhawan, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Gautam Kailey, Advocate
for U.T. Chandigarh
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
***
RITU BAHRI , J.
Challenge is to the judgment dated 06.06.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh whereby the appellant was convicted substantially for a period of three years for the offence punishable under Section 420/467/468/471 IPC.
During the pendency of the present appeal, the matter has been compromised between the parties and vide order dated 01.10.2013, the parties were directed to get Arora Gaurav 2014.01.08 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. A. No. S-2248-SB of 2013 (O&M) -2- their statements recorded before the trial Court with regard to validity of compromise.
In compliance of order dated 01.10.2013, report of Addl. Sessions Judge, Chandigarh has been received. AS per report, the statement of the complainant and the acccused Sukhdev Kumar has been recorded to the effect that they have compromise the matter vide compromise Ex CX. As per compromise deed, petitioner will clear all the dues of maintenance as per orders dated 16.04.2012. He agreed to increase 10% additional maintenance every year on the maintenance of Rs.4000/- per month as per order passed Addl.C.J.M, U.T. Chandigarh, besides that 50% of expenses of admission on fee/books etc for school, college, Institution till the employment of his son Mukul Sharma will be borne by him. He agreed to correct his family pension document and other documents from his department and will supply copy/original to the complainant within a limited period of four months till the completion of formality by department from the signing of present compromise. The petitioner will transfer his 50% share of H. No. 309, Vill Kajehri U.T Chandigarh in the name of his son before signing the compromise. Incase of any technical objection, he will execute irrevocable will in favour of his son. After attaining the age of majoriy, he will transfer his share by way of Arora Gaurav 2014.01.08 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. A. No. S-2248-SB of 2013 (O&M) -3- registry in favour of his son within six months and can revoke the will. It is agreed that he can meet his son at public place with prior intimation to the complainant. He has furnished detailks of immovable property measuirng total area 05 acres 04 kanals 18 marlas situated at village Nangal-amb, Village Chak Bla, Distt. Amritsar and 50% plot of land measuring 08 marlas situated in village Mohra, Distt. Ambala and declare his son as legal heir of above quoted property and will not sell the assets to third party without the prior permission of the competent Court till his son attain the age of majority. The parties have compromised the matter without any kind of pressure and undue influence. The complainant has no objection if the F.I.R be quashed against the appellant.
The matrimonial dispute between the parties have been amicably resolved as per the terms and conditions of the compromise. Thus this Court has no hesitation in accepting the compromise as no useful purpose would be served in prolonging the litigation.
Consequently, in view of the status report and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 429, the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of Arora Gaurav 2014.01.08 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. A. No. S-2248-SB of 2013 (O&M) -4- Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052, no useful purpose would be served in prolonging the litigation.
Accordingly, the judgment dated 06.06.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him.
The appeal is allowed, accordingly.
(RITU BAHRI)
JUDGE December 09, 2013 G.Arora Arora Gaurav 2014.01.08 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document