Crl. Misc. No. 3661 of 2009 and Crl. R. No.512 of 1998 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 3661 of 2009 and Crl. R. No.512 of 1998 (O&M) Decided on : 03-02-2009 Kishan Chand ....Petitioner VERSUS U.T., Chandigarh ....Respondent Present: Mr. S.C. Sibal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Bhupinder Suri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Chahal, A.P.P., U.T. Chandigarh. Mr. K.K. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate. *** S.S. SARON, J. Crl.M. No.3661 of 2008 The affidavit (Annexure P-1) of Kishan Chand petitioner and affidavit (Annexure P-2) of Sunita Rani complainant and the joint compromise deed (Annexure P-3) are taken on record. It is prayed that the criminal revision petition be disposed of in view of the terms of the joint compromise. The Crl. Misc. petition is being taken up with the main criminal revision petition. Crl. R. No.512 of 1998 (O&M) The Crl. Revision has been filed by the petitioner Kishan Chand against the order dated 12.5.1998 passed by learned Additional Sessions Crl. Misc. No. 3661 of 2009 and Crl. R. No.512 of 1998 (O&M) -2- Judge, Chandigarh, whereby the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 16.5.1995 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh has been dismissed and conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Section 354/342 and 506 Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') has been upheld. By the same order dated 12.5.1998 the Crl. Revision filed by the complainant for enhancement of sentence has also been dismissed. F.I.R. for the offences under section 354/342 and 506 IPC was registered on 25.5.1993 against the petitioner at Police Station, Sector 39, Chandigarh on the complaint of Sunita Rani. It was alleged that the petitioner on 12.5.1993 at about 11.00 a.m. in the area of House No.2603, Sector 38, Chandigarh, wrongfully confined the complainant and her younger sister. He used criminal force to outrage the modesty of the complainant and also criminally intimidated her by threatening to kill her. It was stated by the complainant that she was residing at House No.2603, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh along with her parents. On 25.4.1993 her parents had gone to Gujrat. The complainant and her younger sister aged about 5/6 years, were residing in the house along with her brother Raju and his wife Poonam. On the last Wednesday prior to the Wednesday of the week in question at about 11 a.m., the complainant and her sister were alone in the house. At that time, the petitioner who is brother by religion to her mother came to their house and the complainant asked her maternal uncle (petitioner) as to whether he would have tea. He, however, declined. The petitioner asked the complainant as to who were present in the house. She told him that her brother and sister-in-law had gone out in connection with some work and she along with her sister were alone at home. The petitioner Crl. Misc. No. 3661 of 2009 and Crl. R. No.512 of 1998 (O&M) -3- then asked the complainant to accompany him to his house. On refusal of the complainant, he caught hold of her from her arms and pushed her on the bed. Earlier to this he had bolted the door from inside. The petitioner then started to outrage the modesty of the complainant. She raised an alaram, but he shut her mouth. Her sister started weeping. The complainant somehow was able to open the door and the accused ran away after opening of the door. The petitioner, however, threatened that in case the complainant informed anyone about the incident, then it would bring bad name to her. In the evening, the complainant informed her sister-in-law Poonam about the entire incident, who went to the house of the petitioner. But, he threatened her also. The matter was not reported to the Police as her parents were not at home and she was advised by persons of her community that the matter should be reported to the Police on the return of her parents. On these allegations after registering the F.I.R., the Investigating Officer conducted investigations in the case. He went to the place of occurrence, arrested the accused and charge report (challan) was filed against the petitioner by the SHO, Police Station, Sector 39, Chandigarh. The petitioner was chargesheeted for the offences under Section 354/342 and 506 IPC to which he pleaded not guilt. The learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh after considering the evidence and material on record held the petitioner guilty for the offences under Section 354/342 and 506 IPC and convicted him for the same. By a separate order, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 342 IPC, imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 354 IPC and imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 506 Crl. Misc. No. 3661 of 2009 and Crl. R. No.512 of 1998 (O&M) -4- IPC. All the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently. The petitioner aggrieved against the order of the trial Court preferred an appeal in the Sessions Court. The complainant also filed a revision seeking enhancement of the sentence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh vide order dated 12.5.1998 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. The revision petition filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of sentence was also dismissed. The petitioner aggrieved against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge has filed the present Criminal Revision Petition in this Court. By an order dated 02.06.1998, the petitioner was allowed bail during the pendency of the revision petition on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount. During the pendency of the revision petition, Criminal Misc. No.3661 of 2008 has been filed, in which it is stated that the matter has been compromised between the parties and a joint compromise deed dated 23.12.2008 (Annexure P-3) has been entered into. Petitioner No.1 has deposed an affidavit dated 23.12.2008 (Annexure P-1) and the complainant has deposed an affidavit dated 23.12.2008 (Annexure P-2) affirming the compromise that has been entered into. The complainant is present in the Court and is identified by her counsel. She has filed another affidavit today, in which she has deposed that she has entered into a compromise and therefore, does not want to proceed with the case. It is also deposed that the affidavit has been deposed by her without any pressure and with her own understanding. The petitioner has also stated that she does not want to proceed with her complaint and the matter be closed. Crl. Misc. No. 3661 of 2009 and Crl. R. No.512 of 1998 (O&M) -5- I have given my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter. It may be noticed that the offences for which the petitioner has been convicted are under Sections 354, 342 and 506 IPC. Insofar as, the offences under Sections 342 and 506 IPC are concerned, the same in terms of Section 320 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C." - for short) may be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of the table below Section 320 (1) Cr.P.C. In other words, the offence, under Section 342 IPC, regarding wrongfully restraining or confining any person, may be compounded by the person restrained or confined. Besides the offence under Section 506 IPC relating to criminal intimidation may be compounded by the person intimidated. Insofar as, the offence under Section 354 IPC is concerned i.e. relating to an assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty, the same in terms of Section 320 (2) Cr.P.C. as it stood before the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 (Act No.5 of 2009), which received the assent of the President of India on 7.1.2009 and published in the Gazette of India on 9.1.2009 may be compounded with the permission of the Court, before which a prosecution for such offence is pending by the person mentioned in the third column of the said table, which in the present case, would be the petitioner who was assualted and against whom criminal force was used. The provisions of the Table under Section 320(2) CrPC have been substituted by the aforementioned Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 and the offence under Section 354 IPC is now not compoundable. In any case, the same does not affect the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the complaint where the matter has been compromised. Section 320 CrPC does Crl. Misc. No. 3661 of 2009 and Crl. R. No.512 of 1998 (O&M) -6- not limit the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to quash the complaint as regards the offence under Section 354 IPC. In fact, it is debateable as to whether the provisions before the Amendment Act came into force would apply or those after the Amendment Act would apply. However, the said aspect need not be gone into the present case as the parties have amicably resolved their disputes. The aggreived person in the present case is the complainant, who is the person, who was assualted and to whom criminal force was used. She has deposed an affidavit that she does not want to proceed with the case. Besides in terms of a compromise (Annexure P-3) which is signed by seven persons of the locality, it has been stated that the parties want to live in the same Mohalla and therefore, compromise was arrived at between the parties of their own free will. The compromise has been reached at so that relations between the two families of party Nos.1 and 2 remain cordial and there is no strained relations. The demeanour of the complainant who is present in the Court, suggests that she indeed wants to settle the matter and does not want to hold any rancour towards anybody. Therefore, in the circumstances, it would be just and expedient that this Court grants necessary permission to compound the offence in terms of Section 320 (2) Cr.P.C. in sofaras, offence under Section 354 IPC is concerned or in any case quashes the same in case the same is taken to be not compounable as the case may be. For the other two offences under Section 342 and 506 IPC, the same are compoundable by the complainant herself. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the revision petition is liable to be allowed and the judgment and orders of both Crl. Misc. No. 3661 of 2009 and Crl. R. No.512 of 1998 (O&M) -7- the Courts below are liable to be set aside so that there is peace and amity in the locality and neighbourhood and the parties can live with least rancour. The occurrence of the offence was in the year 1993 and therefore, to put a quietus to the matter it would be just and expedient to allow the revision petition. Accordingly, Crl. Revision Petition is allowed. The judgment and order of both the Courts below, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offences under Section 354/342 and 506 IPC is set aside. Crl. Misc. No.3661 of 2009 also stands disposed of accordingly. 3rd February, 2009 (S.S.Saron) Monika/amit Judge