IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1732 of 2006 Date of decision: 5th December, 2011 Rajwinder Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Gurjeet Singh Kaura, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Gagan Mohini, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the State. None for respondent No.2. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Rajwinder Singh on 27th January, 1992 was married with Amarjit Kaur as per sikh traditions and rites. Out of the said marriage daughter Sukhpreet Kaur and son Mandeep Singh were born. At the time of recording statement of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the children were aged about 12 and 10 years respectively. The petitioner was prosecuted in a private complaint instituted by the aggrieved wife-respondent No.2 Amarjit Kaur. In the above said complaint, after the accused were summoned to stand trial, the trial Court on 20th August, 2005 charged the petitioner and his parents for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. The first charge stated that the accused were entrusted with Istri Dhan, which included Scooter Bajaj Chetak; Refrigerator; Jewellery six tolas in the nature of Kara, Chains and six rings; double bed; two iron peties; utensils worth Rs.10,000/-; table; chairs and fan; two watches; Mixy and other articles worth Rs.20,000/-. Since the accused were alleged to Criminal Revision No.1732 of 2006 have misappropriated the above said dowry articles, they were charged for an offence punishable under Section 406 IPC. The second charge stated that the accused demanded Rs.1.00 lakh as dowry and upon failure on the part of complainant to pay the amount, she was subjected to cruel treatment; and thereby the accused had committed an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. The trial Court convicted all the three accused for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC and sentenced them on both counts to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved against the same, the accused had filed an appeal. The appellate Court below acquitted all the three accused under Section 406 IPC. It further acquitted Parkash Kaur and Sampuran Singh, parents of the petitioner, under Section 498-A IPC, however, conviction and sentence of the petitioner on this score was upheld. Mr. Gurjeet Singh Kaura, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has not assailed conviction of the petitioner but has stated that the matrimonial dispute has been resolved and the aggrieved wife has been given nine Kanals of land out of the two acres land owned by the petitioner. It is further stated that from the land the aggrieved wife is getting Theka (lease money) amounting to Rs.15,000/- per annum. Learned counsel has further stated that the children are now of marriageable age and in case the petitioner at this stage is sent behind the bars, it will ruin their matrimonial prospects. Mr.Kaura has prayed that the petitioner be released on probation as he is ready and willing to compensate the aggrieved wife in monetary terms also. 2 Criminal Revision No.1732 of 2006 It is a case of matrimonial dispute. According to the affidavit filed by Prem Kumar Garg, PPS-I, Superintendent, Central Jail, Bathinda, the petitioner has undergone actual sentence of 1 month and 19 days. Taking into consideration totality of circumstances as spelt out by counsel for the petitioner and noticed above, this Court is of the opinion that sending the petitioner behind the bars will not serve any purpose. Hence, the order of sentence is set aside and the petitioner is ordered to be released on probation for a period of one year subject to payment of costs of Rs.50,000/-. The amount, if deposited shall be disbursed to the aggrieved wife as compensation. In case the amount of cost is not deposited, benefit of probation shall not accrue to the petitioner and he will have to undergo the sentence. The petitioner shall execute bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda with an undertaking to keep peace and maintain good conduct for a period of one year. On failure of the petitioner to do so, the benefit of probation be not extended to him and the trial Court shall call upon him to complete his remaining sentence. However, as per Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, conviction of the petitioner upheld by this Court shall not entail him with any disqualification. With the observations made above, present petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE December 5, 2011 rps 3