IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1670 of 2004 Date of decision: February 26, 2010 Jai Bhagwan .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, Addl. A.G. Haryana for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 12.8.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sonipat, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused- petitioner Jai Bhagwan (herein referred as 'the accused') against the judgment dated 11.6.2004 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ganaur, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 498- A IPC. Brief facts are that Savitri Devi complainant (herein referred as 'the complainant') has submitted a complaint dated 19.10.1990 (Ex.PW1/A) alleging therein that she was married with the accused on 23.6.1998 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies at village Agwanpur, Tehsil Ganaur, District Sonipat. Sufficient dowry was given at the time of marriage but the accused was not happy with the dowry articles. At the time of vidai (departure) he had raised the demand of motor cycle from the parents of the complainant but the relatives of the complainant pacified him at that time, but the accused continued insisting on the said demand. He used to rebuke her Criminal Revision No.1670 of 2004 -2- parents and threatened to kill the complainant if she failed to fulfill the demand. She was subjected to cruelty by the accused and his mother on account of bringing less dowry. On the basis of the complaint, FIR was registered, the matter was investigated and ultimately on completion of the investigation, the accused was challaned. The accused was charged under Section 498A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Sumitra Devi (PW1), Lakhmi (PW2), Ram Singh (PW3), Inder Singh (PW4), Parsani Devi (PW5), Narender (PW6), Tek Ram (PW7), Balwalnt Singh (PW8) and SI Jagdish Chander (PW9). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. In defence, he tendered into evidence documents Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-10. The trial ended in conviction. His appeal was also dismissed. Arguments heard. The only point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is a stale matter. The parties were married in the year 1988 and the marriage went to rough weather on 19.10.1990 and thereafter, decree of restitution of conjugal rights was obtained by the accused on 22.2.1992. The parties got divorce vide judgment dated 24.1.1994 (Ex.D-9). The present case relates to the years 1988 to 1990. Much water has flowed since then. The accused is a Government Servant working as teacher. Both the parties after divorce have re-married and are living with their children amicably. The accused has also suffered a lot on account of the protracted Criminal Revision No.1670 of 2004 -3- proceedings since 1990. Under the circumstances, I deem it a fit case where benefit of the provisions of Section 4 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act could be extended to him. Resultantly, while dismissing the petition, sentence passed against the accused is modified to the extent that he be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1956 on his executing a bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonipat for a period of one year within which period he shall continue to be of good behaviour and keep peace and in case of breach of conditions of the bond, he will be ready to serve sentence as and when called for. The fine is converted into costs of litigation. However, the order of probation would not effect his service career. February 26, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge