-1- Criminal Appeal No.812-SB of 1998. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Appeal No.812-SB of 1998. Date of Decision: February 09, 2010. Kuldeep ... Appellant VERSUS State of Haryana ...Respondent 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Appellant on bail with Mr.Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Arshwinder Singh, Advocate. Ms. Sushma Chopra, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr.Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate, for the complainant. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Impugned in this appeal is the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, convicting appellant Kuldeep under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short `the Code') and the sentence order whereby the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous -2- Criminal Appeal No.812-SB of 1998. imprisonment for a period of ten years under Section 304-B of the Code. The learned Sessions Judge did not consider the need of passing any separate sentence under Section 498-A of the Code in view of the substantive sentence awarded for major offence under Section 304-B of the Code. The instant F.I.R under Sections 498-A, 304-B read with Section 34 of the Code was registered against the appellant and Jai Singh and Husiari (acquitted accused) at the instance of complainant Om Parkash (P.W.1), (since deceased),whose daughter Darshna (since deceased) was married with appellant Kuldeep. The parties have now compromised the matter. On 28.1.2010, statements of appellant Kuldeep and Smt.Jagwanti, mother of deceased Darshna were recorded. Appellant Kuldeep in his statement stated that out of his wed-lock with deceased Darshna two male children were born, who were residing with the appellant. The appellant undertook to deposit Rs.2,50,000/- each in favour of the minor children in he shape of Fixed Deposit Receipts till they attain the age of majority. Smt.Jagwanti, mother of deceased Darshna, in her statement dated 28.1.2010 stated that keeping in view the future of her grandsons and as the differences have been sorted out with the intervention of respectables, she had no objection in case the appellant was acquitted in this case. She further stated that the appellant was bringing up the children in a right manner. -3- Criminal Appeal No.812-SB of 1998. On 4.2.2010, the following order was passed by this Court:- “ In pursuance of the statement made by Kuldeep Singh accused/appellant on 28.1.2010, he has produced two original FDRs of Rs.2,50,000/- each in the names of his sons namely Kum Jai Atish Shou (wrongly written as Suou) and Kum Jai Ashish Shou, in the Court. Both the FDRs have been invested in long term deposit for a period of six years and both the minor sons will be entitled to withdraw this amount after the said period of six years. Nobody will be able to withdraw this amount before the said period. Bank will not grant any loan, interest on these FDRs till the date of maturity i.e. 1.02.2016. Appellant will deposit both these FDRs with the Nazir of the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, and at the time of maturity, the concerned Court will send intimation to both the sons of the appellant and will hand over the FDRs to them for realization of the amount. Appellant will produce a receipt in this regard, regarding handing over the FDRs -4- Criminal Appeal No.812-SB of 1998. to the Nazir of the Court of Sessions Judge, Gurgaon on the next dale i.e. 8.02.2010. Photostate copies of the FDRs have been kept on the judicial file. Nazir will make necessary note on the reverse of the FDRs. Copy of the order be also sent to the concerned Bank by the trial Court. Copy of the order be given `Dasti' under the signatures of the Court Secretary.” The appellant, as per the order passed by this Court on 4.2.2010, has handed over the Fixed Deposit Receipts of Rs.2,50,000/- each to the Nazir of the Court of Sessions Judge, Gurgaon. Receipt issued by the Nazir in this regard has been placed on the record of this case. The authenticity of the compromise has been vouchsafed by the learned counsel for the appellant and the complainant. As per the ratio of law laid down by a Five Judges Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, (2007-3) Punjab Law Reporter 439, there is no statutory bar under the Code of Criminal Procedure which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should -5- Criminal Appeal No.812-SB of 1998. endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that it will be of no use to send the appellant to jail again at this stage and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment already undergone by appellant Kuldeep, which is about three years, would be sufficient. Thus, the conviction of appellant Kuldeep under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Code of is maintained but the sentence of rigorous imprisonment is reduced to the one already undergone by him keeping in view the compromise between the parties. The sentence order is modified to the extent indicated above. Resultantly, by invoking the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this appeal is disposed of in view of the compromise between the parties, mentioned above. February 09, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE