IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Appeal No.498-SB of 1996 Date of Decision: 11.8.2009 Sanjeev Kumar and others. ....... Appellants through Shri Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with Shri Rahul Vats, Advocate. Versus The State of Punjab. ....... Respondent through Shri B.B.S.Teji, Assistant Advocate General. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether 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? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This appeal is directed against judgment and order of sentence dated 12/15.7.1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala (hereinafter described as `the trial Court') whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced under Sections 498-A, 313 and 34 of the I.P.C. in a case arising out of F.I.R.No.65 dated 16.8.1992 registered against them at Police Station, Patran, under Sections 325, 323, 498-A, 34 and 313 of the I.P.C. on the basis of statement made by complainant-Anita Rani (PW3). Learned counsel for the appellants, at the out-set,contended that Crl.Appeal No.498-SB of 1996 -2- .... during the pendency of the present proceedings, a compromise was effected between the complainant and the appellants, according to which appellant no.1- Sanjeev Kumar and the complainant have parted ways. He further contended that all the dowry articles were returned to the complainant and a sum of Rs.1,32,500/- was paid in cash to her in full and final settlement. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that on the basis of such settlement, the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 filed by appellant no.1 was converted into that under Section 13-B of the said Act and the marriage between them has since been dissolved. He has placed on record a copy of judgment dated 3.12.1996 passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala in the said petition, which is taken on record as Mark-A. Having regard to the aforesaid and considering the fact that the parties have settled the matter and the complainant & appellant no.1 have parted ways and the marriage between them has since been dissolved and the claim of the complainant has been satisfied which is reflected from copy of the judgment Mark-A, I am of the view that the sentence of the appellants deserves to be reduced to that of already undergone. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of with a direction that the conviction of the appellants shall remain intact, whereas the sentence of imprisonment awarded to them by the trial Court is reduced to that of already undergone. August 11,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge