Criminal Revision No. 1256 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1256 of 2008. Date of Decision : 28.1.2011. Sat Narain ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. J.P. Dhull, Advocate, for the petitioner, Mr. S.S. Goripuria, DAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) Petitioner along with five co-accused was tried for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498- A IPC. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal convicted and sentenced them as under:- Offence Sentence Fine In default 406 IPC RI for 2 years Rs.2000/- 30 days 498-A IPC RI for 2 years Rs.2000/- 30 days The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Aggrieved of the same, an appeal was filed before Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal. The Additional Sessions Judge by impugned judgment dated July 5th, 2008 maintained the conviction of the petitioner however, he reduced the sentence from two years to one year and acquitted the co-accused. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that he does not challenge the conviction and prays for reduction of the sentence on the grounds that, (i) during the pendency of litigation, parties entered into compromise and that is why they filed petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce by mutual consent. A decree of divorce by mutual consent was passed; (ii) The petitioner as well as his divorced wife have remarried and; (iii) The articles which were taken into possession from the petitioner Criminal Revision No. 1256 of 2008 2 were also returned to the complainant. 4. Taking into consideration all the factors given here- in-above and particularly the fact that the parties have remarried and settled in life, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice are always higher than mere law and it shall be in the interest of justice to reduce the sentence of the petitioner to the period already undergone. Hence, this Court upholds the conviction of the petitioner but reduces the sentence to the period already undergone by him. 5. The revision is accepted partly as indicated above. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 28.1.2011 SN